Sitting of 14 February 2002

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

    CITY, OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 28 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on proposals to assist small businesses in the north-west. [33789]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): In the north-west, business link operators have assisted 23,557 businesses since 1 April 2001, administered 98 offers of smart grants worth £4.8 million, guaranteed nearly 300 business loans worth £17 million, and helped more than 1,500 exporters in small and medium-sized enterprises. The present business plans of business link operators in the region aim to continue to drive up the quality of the service given.
    Mr. Chapman: Companies in the Wirral are grateful for all that assistance, and we have done particularly well in terms of regional selective assistance. It is, however, the medium and larger firms that tend to benefit from that. The small firms—the seed bed of future growth—have traditionally faced a somewhat confusing plethora of sources of advice and assistance. Is the Minister content that he is simplifying access, rather than complicating it, by transferring smart and enterprise grants from the Government office to the Small Business Service, for example, and by making other changes such as moving regional selective assistance to the regional development agency?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend highlights the pressing need to streamline the process. We are doing so by strengthening the Small Business Service and the regional development agencies to ensure that effective help goes
    294
    to small businesses, which are, after all, the driving force behind our economic prosperity. That is why these moves have been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Will the Minister explain to small businesses in the north-west, and to others around the country, precisely what they have to do, and how much they have to pay to whom, to secure the personal services of the Prime Minister in connection with their export ambitions?
    Nigel Griffiths: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He should speak to the many small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency that have benefited from the services of the Small Business Service and from the regional development agency. He should join me in praising them for their drive in exports—
    Mr. Gale: Corrupt!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a term that I wish to hear in the Chamber. Who was the hon. Gentleman referring to when he said "Corrupt"?
    Mr. Gale: I was referring to the overall practice that appears to have been taking place, Mr. Speaker. If you feel that that is out of order, I will, of course, withdraw it.
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members should speak for their constituencies and for the firms that need help. We are having to speak for them, because those hon. Members are dwelling on trivia.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is it not rather strange that my hon. Friend the Minister, in referring to north-west businesses, has not yet referred to the extraordinary success of business in the city of Lancaster, where £1 million of extra grant from the Government has brought in £10 million of private sector finance and created 1,000 jobs; where we have economic development zones; and where the University of Lancaster is at the cutting edge of broadband technology? The city is truly at the heart of the north-west and of future science-based enterprise. Surely the answer to the question of how to help small businesses in the north-west is, "Come to Lancaster".
    Nigel Griffiths: I could not agree more, and I cannot wait to join my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Small businesses in the north-west and elsewhere are struggling to cope with a continuing deluge of regulation from the Government. I am sure that the Minister is an avid reader of the New Statesman, and that he will have read the interview in which Lord Haskins—the head of the Government's better regulation task force—revealed that 16 of the 23 members of the Cabinet are wedded to regulation as the only way to achieve results. Does not that show that there is no hope for small businesses under the Labour Government?
    Nigel Griffiths: Perhaps I can commend another publication to the hon. Gentleman. He clearly has not seen a copy of the report that the Commission issued this week

    295
    on the EU charter for small enterprises, which singles out the United Kingdom's Europe office of the Small Business Service as an effective voice against Brussels bureaucracy. The report commended the office to all other states. I would also be interested to know how the Conservatives defend the 10,000 regulations on business that they introduced between 1994 and 1997.

    Postal Services (Slough)
    Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment she has made of the quality of postal services in Slough. [33790]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Postcomm and Postwatch are responsible for monitoring the quality of service provided for scheduled postal services. The targets for those services are agreed by Postwatch and set by Postcomm in the Consignia licence.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed they are, and Slough consistently fails to meet the targets. Discussions with Post Office staff and management have led me to conclude that the main reason for the chronic failure of all Slough's postal services is weak management. What can the Minister do to improve the quality of management?
    Mr. Alexander: I agree that there is a need for better customer services and better management within Consignia. That is specifically why, as the Government and as owner, we have appointed a new finance director, Marisa Cassoni, to Consignia's board. Allan Leighton, who was first appointed as a non-executive director, is now acting as interim chairman. I am also pleased to announce that on 15 April David Mills will join Consignia from HSBC as the chief executive of Post Office Counters Ltd. and as a member of Consignia's board. He will further strengthen the management, and the post office network will benefit from his considerable commercial skills.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know that Slough—and, indeed, Lichfield—has an excellent talking books for the blind service. Free postal services are available for the registered blind, and the Minister will agree that their withdrawal would cause considerable difficulty. Will the Minister assure the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my constituents that, notwithstanding changes to the postal service in years to come, free services for the blind will be maintained?
    Mr. Alexander: I assure constituents in Slough and Lichfield that there is now a statutory basis for that service—the Postal Services Act 2000.

    Consignia
    Mr. Mark Hoban: what recent representations she has received regarding the performance of Consignia. [33791]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I regularly receive representations regarding the performance of Consignia from a range of sources.
    Mr. Hoban: Given the impact of unofficial strikes by the Communication Workers Union on Consignia's performance, does the Secretary of State agree that the threat of such industrial action is reckless and irresponsible? Will she join me in condemning that union's threats against Consignia?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that, under the Conservative Government, the average number of days lost each year through strikes in the Post Office was 145,667. We have slashed the number of days lost through industrial action, and industrial relations have improved significantly since the Sawyer report. As I have said before in the House, I continue to urge management and unions, with the help of mediation, to settle this pay dispute as quickly as possible.
    Mr. George Stevenson: In considering the performance of Consignia and its business, will my right hon. Friend also take into account yesterday's devastating news that Royal Doulton intends to close its north Staffordshire factory and transfer the business to Indonesia? As Consignia gets a great deal of business from Royal Doulton in north Staffordshire, will she be good enough to write to the company to find out the exact reasons for its decision, and its effect on Consignia's business and on other small businesses in the area?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the effect of the job losses announced yesterday on Consignia, his constituents and their families. I will of course ensure that my officials are in touch with the company, so that we can understand fully the reasons for its decision and establish whether we can give any help.
    Mr. Richard Page: Under the Secretary of State's fingertip control, 30,000 redundancies have been announced; Consignia has lost money; thousands of sub-post offices face closure; and a terrible strike is about to hit. Does she accept that the best action that the Government can take is to set Consignia free by privatising it?
    Ms Hewitt: As I said recently in the House, the Post Office's problems stem directly from the years of drift and decline under the Conservatives, and their failure to allow it the necessary freedom to make investments and changes at a time when every other postal service in Europe was making such changes. We have delivered what the Post Office needs—commercial freedom within the public sector. We are delivering the stronger management that is necessary, and management and unions are working together much more effectively since the Sawyer report, which we commissioned. Management and unions are sitting down together and talking about the business restructuring that must take place.

    297
    I am confident that the changes that the Post Office needs are being made by Government, management and the unions. As a result, customers will get the better service that they urgently need.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Has my right hon. Friend seen the rather frightening report from Postcomm, the regulator? Has she also seen early-day motion 797—signed by more than 100 Members so far—which says that we should leave Government, management and work force to get together, as they are at present, to bring about an improvement in Consignia's performance, rather than taking precipitate action? Will she accordingly allow much more time for consideration of, and consultation on, what I believe to be an unnecessary and damaging recommendation by Postcomm?
    Ms Hewitt: Postcomm's proposals are simply proposals for consultation. That consultation is taking place, and I have no doubt that Postcomm will take full account of the views of Members as well as others.
    I remind my hon. Friend that in the Postal Services Act 2000 we have written into law, for the first time ever, a universal service obligation, which will apply to Consignia. We have also established that Postcomm's primary duty is to ensure that a universal service is delivered. Any proposals or decisions from Postcomm about market opening must be subsidiary to that duty.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is not today's Order Paper stark testimony to the concern in all parts of the House about our failing postal service? Does the Secretary of State not agree with the regulator's proposals for the liberalisation of postal services? If there is a national postal strike, will she back any move by the regulator to safeguard our postal service by lifting Consignia's monopoly?
    Ms Hewitt: I have already said that I share the concern in all parts of the House about Consignia's performance. I have also explained why the deterioration in its performance has taken place. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware of the failure of the Government whom he supported to enable the company to make the necessary changes. Those changes are now happening.
    The regulator's primary duty is to ensure that a universal service is maintained, and that would apply in the event of a strike.

    Post Office Regulator
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If she will make a statement on the role of the Post Office regulator. [33792]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The creation of Postcomm was part of the package of greater commercial freedom that we introduced in the Postal Services Act 2000. As my hon. Friend knows, the Act provides that Postcomm's primary duty is to exercise its functions to ensure the provision of a universal postal service.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most remarkable feature of Opposition Members'
    298

    comments is their failure to refer to the "strike" in investment in the Post Office that lasted for so many years, which has left Consignia far too weak to function as an efficient business? Could not the regulator's recommendations damage Consignia' s ordinary operation so severely that the Government's guarantees of a universal postal service would be rendered null and void?
    Ms Hewitt: As my hon. Friend knows, the Postal Services Act—for which he and I and all Labour Members voted—writes the universal service obligation into law. That means a delivery every working day to every address in the United Kingdom, and a collection every working day from post boxes throughout the United Kingdom, at a uniform and affordable price.
    It is the regulator's primary duty to ensure that a universal service is delivered. Of course Postcomm will have to ensure that its decisions on market opening, which will be designed to give customers more choice and a better service, are framed in such a way that that service is indeed delivered.
    Mr. David Cameron: When the Secretary of State speaks to Postcomm, will she stress the need for a proper service in rural areas? Is she aware that many people in the countryside of my west Oxfordshire constituency are finding that mail is delivered later and later? How can the closure of post offices possibly help that? Will the right hon. Lady ensure that a universal service is provided early each day for people living in the countryside?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of reliable mail deliveries and good post offices in rural communities. The service being provided by the Royal Mail in some rural as well as some urban areas is not good enough. That is why management are talking to unions about restructuring, which is necessary to deliver a much more efficient and reliable service to customers in rural areas and everywhere else in our country. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have very substantially slowed down the rate of closure of rural post offices, and that we have put in place the necessary funding to enable communities that would otherwise not be served to keep their post offices in operation.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for Postcomm to extend the six-week consultation, given that its proposals are far ranging, go much further than those in the rest of Europe and will, in a matter of weeks, open 40 per cent. of our postal services to competition?
    Ms Hewitt: It is essential that Postcomm carries out a full consultation on its proposals. I have no doubt that it will do so and that it will take account of the views that my hon. Friend has expressed.
    Dr. Vincent CableDoes not the Secretary of State agree that the rapid introduction of competition and the inevitable cherry-picking of the Post Office business will make carrying the financial burden of the universal service obligation much more onerous? Would it not be fair and economically sensible for the new private operators to make a financial contribution to the universal service obligation through a charge or levy? As that is not allowable under the present legislation,

    299
    will the right hon. Lady discuss with the regulator how the anomaly could be corrected to put the universal service obligation on a sound and permanent footing?
    Ms Hewitt: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the excellent report that was recently published by the National Audit Office. It sets out clearly the double risk: that if competition is introduced too rapidly to the market the universal service will be jeopardised; and that, without adequate competition, Consignia will not have the necessary incentives to restructure its business and improve its service. At the moment, the regulator and the company completely disagree about the effect of market opening on the business. Therefore, the most urgent priority is for the regulator and the company to arrive at a common analysis of the implications of market opening, so that Postcomm can make decisions to ensure that its primary duty of maintaining the universal service is achieved.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. George Osborne: What recent discussions she has had with the aerospace industry about the after-effects of 11 September. [33793]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): We have been in close contact with the aerospace industry since 11 September and will continue to work with it to help it to deal with the impact of the attacks and thereby to ensure a strong future for the industry.
    Mr. Osborne: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the loss of 1,000 jobs at BAE Systems at Woodford on the edge of my constituency, which brings to an end the production of whole passenger planes in this country. The local MPs whose constituencies have been affected have genuinely appreciated our discussions with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence, and last but not least, the Minister himself yesterday. Does he agree that it is vital for Britain's manufacturing base that we maintain a civil as well as a military aerospace industry, and how does he propose to foster that?
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I agree that it would be serious if this country lost its civil capacity, which is why I regret British Aerospace's decision on Woodford. As I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday, I am happy to discuss specifically the future of Woodford with British Aerospace and to emphasise the point about maintaining that diversity of production. There are positive aspects—some airline traffic is returning—and there is no doubt that this is a world-class industry or about the skills at Woodford and other places that are being adversely affected. We must work as closely as possible with the industry to maintain the capacity and the skills base so that we are in a position to take advantage of the upturn when it comes.
    Valerie Davey: Was the Department's decision to grant BAE Systems a licence to export a military air traffic control system to Tanzania in any way affected by the after-effects of 11 September?
    Mr. Wilson: I understand that the decision was thoroughly considered in line with consolidated criteria. It is a free-standing decision and it is not affected by the other matters that we are discussing.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision on the air traffic control system, which has retained jobs in my constituency. Is the Minister willing to visit east Cowes, where 650 jobs at GKN Westland have been lost—on that subject, I look forward to meeting him on 12 March—and to help people there to boost manufacturing output on the island? In particular, will he consider restoring assisted area status to the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Wilson: Although we cannot do away with the overall impact of 11 September, I often find that significant progress can be made by taking each problem on merit and considering amelioration and various solutions. That has been my experience in a number of areas in which the aviation and aeronautical industries are particularly important. If I can make any significant contribution to improving the position on the Isle of Wight, I am prepared to do so. In principle, I am happy to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Steel Industry
    Helen Jackson: What recent discussions she has had regarding the UK steel industry. [33796]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson)My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ministers and officials have had discussions with key organisations representing the steel industry about a variety of issues in recent months. The latest focused on the proposed US action to impose additional import duties and quotas on a wide range of steel products.
    Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the steel industry is no longer an old, dirty smokestack industry, but one for this century that is at the cutting edge of technology and at the core of this country's manufacturing sector? For those reasons, we welcome the Government's support for the industry and, in particular, the national metals centre in South Yorkshire and the work on America. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the industry's strength lies in the people whom it employs? Will she give continuing support for their training, their skills base and, indeed, their pay in the current circumstances?
    Miss Johnson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of new technological developments and the way in which the national metals technology centre will bring together industry, science and academia to create a unique network and facility for UK metal producers, fabricators and users. That shows how we are moving forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary

    301
    of State said when she announced the funding for the centre, we shall ensure that the metals industry is equipped to be a world-class competitor for years to come.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Has the Minister read the story in this morning's Western Mail revealing that the company controlled by Lakshmi Mittal, the Labour party donor, has already cost Allied Steel and Wire £5 million of business? Allied Steel and Wire employs 1,300 people in this country—1,000 of them in Cardiff—while Ispat employs fewer than 100. What advice would the Minister give to Allied Steel and Wire workers? Would it be to write to the Prime Minister to intervene on their behalf with Mr. Mittal? Or would it be to have a quick whip-round for Labour party coffers?
    Miss Johnson: The advice that I would give the hon. Gentleman is to read Monday's press release from the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation general secretary, who said that the allegation made by the Tories and Plaid Cymru that the Prime Minister had put the interests of Romanian steel workers before those of UK steel workers was "ludicrous and cheap". He went on to say that he had explained the situation to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who neglected to check the comments that had been made before going public with the allegations. The general secretary said—
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should let the Minister reply. He asked the question: he should give her courtesy.
    Miss Johnson: The general secretary of the ISTC went on to conclude in the press notice that matters had not been checked before the allegations were made public. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr is reported to have apologised, but the general secretary went on to say that he was "dumbfounded" that the allegations continued to be made.
    It is clear that Corm has cited general trading conditions as the reason for the pay freeze, rather than competition from firms in eastern Europe. The UK has an excellent productivity record.
    Paul Flynn: Is it not true that steelworkers rightly reject Plaid Cymru's malign fantasies? No one from that party took part in the negotiations last year, when Corus told my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the trade unions and MPs representing steelworks areas that nothing that anyone could do or say would alter the company's decision to mutilate and butcher the Welsh steel industry. Instead of turning this tragedy into a political football, should not Plaid Cymru Members join the Welsh Assembly and the Government in trying to heal the wounds, especially at a time when Corns is dripping a bit of extra acid into them?
    Miss Johnson: As I said, the UK steel industry has an excellent productivity record. It has experienced difficult trading conditions in recent years, but the problems are not confined to the UK. We are part of a global economy, and no country can insulate itself from world economic events. The Government and Ministers are making every effort to work with Corns to ensure that the major problem
    302
    facing the industry—the threatened events in the US—is dealt with and tackled in an effective manner. We believe that the issue that needs to be addressed is that, unlike the industry in the UK and the EU, the US industry is trying to export problems to the rest of the world. The US needs to grasp that nettle. Imports are not the cause of the problem.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: I am genuinely sorry that the Minister has been the one to draw the short straw in having to answer this question. However, the UK steel industry is suffering from overcapacity, and there have been 6,000 job losses. Will she say what possible benefit the industry will receive as a result of the support given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the purchase of a Romanian steel company by a company that is not based in Britain and which employs fewer than 100 people in this country?
    Miss Johnson: The Prime Minister made it clear—as did his letter—that it is a market opening in Romania for British industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that both that and the restructuring that is under way in the Romanian economy are important for British industry. In trying to trivialise those matters, is he not losing the thread of the argument that what we are about in the UK is promoting British business and British jobs, whether at home or abroad?
    Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Lady describes it as "British industry", but on what definition can a company with less than 0.1 per cent. of its work force in Britain possibly be described as British? Is she aware that British steel manufacturers have already said that a revitalised Romanian industry is bound to make it harder for British steel companies to compete? Is not that why the last Conservative Government lobbied against LNM being allowed to take over Irish Steel? Is it not the case that there will be no benefit to Britain from this takeover—other than a return for favours given to the Labour party?
    Miss Johnson: The Prime Minister dealt with a number of those issues yesterday, when I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in this place. The LNM group gives London as its headquarters address, and a number of UK-registered companies are part of the group.
    Turning to the real issue for the UK steel industry at present—Opposition Members seem to have a problem focusing on that real issue, unlike Labour Members—the industry faces concerted unilateral US action on steel imports that would create fresh barriers to transatlantic trade and fresh distortions in the global steel industry. That is the real issue facing the UK steel industry.

    Textiles
    Mr. Andy Reed: What steps she is taking to assist the textile sector. [33797]
    The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The Department is working closely with the industry's own textile and clothing strategy group to help to improve the industry's productivity and competitiveness. The Government have invested more than£80 million in the industry since 1997, and in the last

    303
    year alone we have invested close to £8 million, focused principally on developing the technical textiles market, education and training opportunities, the supply chain, design skills, the benefits of e-commerce and export support.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He knows that, over the years, I and other members of the all-party group on clothing and textiles have asked for more help and more money. It is welcome that, at last, some efforts are being put in which are making a real difference on the ground.
    Does my hon. Friend agree with me and James McAdam, who is the chairman of the textile and clothing strategy group, that we cannot afford to be complacent, and that much more needs to be done to ensure a vibrant future for our textile industry in this country?
    Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no cause for complacency. The industry has drawn up 55 recommendations which are being actioned; indeed, a report is due to be published shortly by the industry-led group on how Government can help the industry further. However, the textile industry realises—as does my hon. Friend, who has been its doughty champion—that it will need to make itself more globally competitive in order to ensure its success.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: What action are the Government taking to allow high-energy users in sectors such as knitting, spinning and weaving, which are not using IPPC—international pollution prevention control—processes, to enter the sectoral agreement and thereby claim a rebate from the climate change levy? They will otherwise be at a serious disadvantage. If the Minister is unable to give a detailed reply now, will he write to me with such a reply?
    Alan Johnson: I am always delighted to write to the hon. Gentleman. However, he should know that, since the pre-Budget report, representations have been made on behalf of those specific sectors as regards the climate change levy. Those representations are under consideration ahead of the Budget.

    Miners' Compensation
    Vernon Coaker: What progress is being made with respect to miners' compensation claims. [33798]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): May I also take this opportunity to respond to the interest expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who recently raised the issue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?
    In total, more than £700 million has been paid for both respiratory disease and vibration white finger schemes. The number of final offers on respiratory disease claims has risen sharply in recent months—nearly 7,000 full and final offers in the last quarter. I am committed to 50,000 by the end of this year. We are working with the solicitors
    304
    to ensure that those offers are translated quickly in to settlements. Nearly 10,000 full and final vibration white finger offers were also made in the last quarter.
    Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will have seen the report in today's Financial Times about the amount that the compensation scheme will cost and the number of claims that are still outstanding. He will know that, in former mining constituencies such as mine and many others throughout the country, large numbers of ex-miners and their families are still waiting for compensation. Many of those people are dying, waiting for that compensation. I know that my hon. Friend has tried to speed up the system, but there is still an awful lot of work to be done to ensure that those claims are speeded up and dealt with quickly. Will he look at the matter again, to see what more could be done to speed up those claims?
    Mr. Wilson: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am looking at it on a day and daily basis; hopefully, that has contributed to the speeding up that he acknowledges. Claims are still coming in at the rate of about 1,000 a week, so by definition many claims will not be settled for a significant further length of time.
    The difficulty, but also the strength, of the scheme is that each and every case is individually assessed according to the work record and medical history of the individual. It would be very easy and convenient to make blanket payments, which in many cases would undervalue what the applicant is entitled to, but every claim will be met in full. There is no capping of this scheme, as was pointed out in the Financial Times today, and that is why justice will ultimately be done to every miner, or every widow or every family of every miner.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Can the Minister explain how his Department and the Treasury got these figures so completely wrong? Will he confirm that in 1998 the estimate was that the scheme would cost £2 billion, and that today's figures say that it will be £6 billion; and that that is a complete underestimate of the bill that the Treasury is facing?
    Mr. Wilson: I find that a very odd question, but the hon. Gentleman might acknowledge two things. First, he could acknowledge that the reason why people are dying before these claims are met is that for 20 years the Tories did nothing to meet these legitimate claims; hence people who retired from mining 20 to 25 years ago and who suffer from these serious diseases are, by definition, very elderly. Even the Tories can do the arithmetic; if one adds 20 or 25 to a retirement age, it becomes obvious that many of those people are very elderly.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman could acknowledge that we cannot estimate how much a scheme will cost when we do not know how many applications there will be. To the credit of the Labour Government, we have kept the scheme open so that everyone has a right to apply, and ultimately justice will be done to every miner. That is the justice that history will record the Tories denied those miners for decade after decade.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister accept from me that I am pleased that the estimate has gone up from £2 billion to £6 billion, because that means

    305
    that this series of civil claims—not state claims—means that the Government have decided to set aside £6 billion to pay out common law claims? I am also pleased to note that now the figure has gone up because the widows can get the money in the case of their husbands' deaths; and I am pleased to say that, as a result of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), payments are now made directly to the estate of families in the case of the widow's death as well.
    We should bear in mind the fact that we now have the problem of fly-by-night solicitors running round the Coal Board estates, trying to whip up support, not for anyone else's benefit but simply to line their own pockets.
    I am pleased that the figure is £6 billion. It means that we are going to pay out to more than 200,000 families. Let us get on with the job.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely pertinent comments. [Laughter.] They are hugely pertinent. Let us use this opportunity—
    Mr. Robert Key indicated assent.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful that the Opposition energy spokesman has the good sense to nod his head in agreement with me. It is immensely important that people understand that no claim dies with the individual. Opponents, particularly in Wales, are putting around the untruth that the Government have some vested interest in delay. It is the opposite of the truth, because the claim passes from the miner to the widow, to the estate of the miner or the widow, and eventually that money is paid. It costs the Treasury more to pay out on a claim if the miner is deceased. We have a vested interest on the grounds of justice, of ethics and, marginally, of finance in ensuring that every claim is met as justly and speedily as possible.
    I am delighted that an additional 4,500 full and final offers were paid in January and that £25 million more was paid out for respiratory diseases alone. Let us keep the figures going and continue to work together to bring justice to every person who has served the energy needs of the country by working in the mining industry.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are serious about reclaiming moneys from the National Union of Mineworkers as joint tortfeasors? It is a bizarre notion to those people who understand and practise that law.
    Mr. Skinner: What about the NACODS commission?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend mentions the breakaway union, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which is the only union to take a commission from the payments. I have no idea why a union with a membership in two digits needs that money from the claims of ex-miners.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Although I welcome the figures that the Minister gave, will he also consider the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme? Will he ask his officials to carry out an inquiry to ascertain whether the state benefits that
    306
    are part of the scheme were originally meant to be part of a remunerative package? If that is the case, will he set in motion back payments for pneumoconiotics
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is an articulate and effective representative of the interests of miners and mining communities. I will give detailed consideration to that matter.

    Rural Sub-Post Offices
    Adam Price: What recent discussions she has held with Consignia regarding the preservation of the rural network of sub-post offices. [33800]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Discussions with Post Office Ltd. take place regularly on the implementation of the performance and innovation unit recommendations to modernise the post office network, including those relating specifically to the rural network. The Government's formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures of rural post offices remains in place.
    Adam Price: I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristically un helpful reply. If the Government are sincere in their commitment to preserve the rural network, why is the commission on the new automated teller machine system weighted against smaller post offices, because it increases with volume? If sub-post offices have fewer than 180 transactions a month, they will receive no commission. Can we have a real business plan from the Government to save the rural network, or is that too much to ask of a Government who care little for rural communities?
    Mr. Alexander: The sincerity of the Government's commitment to the rural network is evidenced by the fact that we have accepted every one of the 24 PIU recommendations, which we have backed with real cash. Some £480 million has been contributed to the network to upgrade the computer systems and another £270 million has been committed as a result of the last spending round. There have been other changes on top of that. The rural transfer managers are making a significant difference in community after community across the country, and the new £2 million fund for community post offices will also have an impact across the country. In addition, there is an obligation on Consignia to prevent avoidable closures. That is in direct contrast to the previous Government's neglect.
    Mr. David Kidney: Will the Leicestershire pilot of "Your Guide" be extended nation wide later this year? If so, who will pay for it?
    Mr. Alexander: As I said in a debate late last year, the pilot will be completed on time, at the beginning of March. That will allow us not only to evaluate the effectiveness of the service and the income stream to Post Office Counters Ltd. but to expedite work across Government in considering the delivery of electronic services. I can assure my hon. Friend that we

    307
    areproceeding apace not only with discussions within Government, but also with the evaluation of the pilot with Post Office Counters.
    Brian Cotter: May I again ask the Minister why, 18 months after the introduction of the £2 million interim scheme to help rural sub-post offices and urban post offices, only five claims have been made, totalling £27,000? I have asked that question before, and the issue has been raised on several occasions. There has not been a satisfactory answer, although we are seeing, week on week, sub-post offices closing throughout the country.
    Mr. Alexander: I am glad to say that one of the reasons why there has not been as much demand as there would have been in the equivalent period last year is that the rate of post office closures is falling, not rising. The significant figure to which I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention is that, in the current year, the total number of closures has been far less than the 434 that occurred last year. In fact, real progress has also been made on the scheme to which he refers. In addition, more than 100 forms have been sent to organisations across the country. My predecessor ensured that many parish councils were notified of the scheme's availability. I am confident that, as the months proceed and where opportunities for community involvement in post offices exist, the scheme will provide an effective and efficient means by which to make progress.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Return to Work
    Siobhain McDonagh: What steps she is taking to encourage women who have left jobs in the public health and education services to return to work in those services. [33824]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Thousands of women teachers and health professionals are being helped to return to work in our schools and hospitals every year, as a result of our supported return to work programmes, our investment in child care and increased flexibility in work patterns and working hours.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she expand on assistance with child care? I understand that, in the recent consultations that she has undertaken in her role as Minister for Women, expensive child care was particularly identified as a problem in returning to work, especially in London, where child care costs are higher than in other parts of the country.
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. Child care costs, particularly in London, can be a real barrier to women seeking to return to work. For example, the refresher courses, which the Government are funding, for teachers returning to work include help with child care costs. The national health service is
    308
    increasingly providing creches and advice for women who need to get child care close to their places of work so that they can return to work in the NHS.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House what proportion of the women who left those sectors were full time; what proportion were part time; and what proportion left voluntarily to spend time with their families at home?
    Ms Hewitt: I do not have the detailed figures for which the hon. Lady asks, but of course most of the women who left their professions did so to spend time with their children, and they have gained invaluable experience, as well as contributing to their families, as a result. Of course, we are seeking not to compel anyone to return, but to make it much easier for women who have that combination of family experience and relevant qualifications to return to work when they want to do so, on hours that will suit them and their families.

    Public Appointments
    Joan Ruddock: What steps she is taking to increase the number of women entering public life. [33825]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The women's representation Bill completed its parliamentary stages on 28 January and will, I hope, receive Royal Assent shortly. The Government's overall action plan on public appointments, together with individual departmental action plans, will be published today.
    Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I tell her that ethnic minority women are even less well represented in the House and in public appointments than other women? A third of my constituents are from ethnic minorities. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to encourage such women to come forward for public appointments, which are generally deemed to be for the great and the good—which tends to mean white people and white men particularly?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I am glad to say that, as a result of the steps that we have taken during the past four and a half years, we have succeeded in opening up many of the 30,000 appointments to a much wider range of people, so that they are no longer simply for the so-called great and the good. But she is right to say that the under-representation of women from the African, Caribbean and Asian communities in particular is a very real problem; and she will also see in the departmental action plans the specific steps that Departments are taking to increase their representation not only of women, but of people from minority ethnic communities.
    Sandra Gidley: In 1997, 33 per cent. of public appointments were held by women. The women and equality unit website states that that percentage is the same today. Does that not signify the Government's failure to address the problem? Will the Secretary of State tell us today's figures for the percentage of women in public life? Will she admit that holding a few seminars

    309
    around the country will do little or nothing to reach the wider cohort of women who should be encouraged to play a part in public life?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady will find from the report published today that the figure is now 34 per cent., which is nowhere near good enough. However, she is wrong to mock the seminars that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who also has a responsibility for women, is holding around the country. We are succeeding in attracting enormous interest from women who are already playing a role in their communities as governors in schools, as leaders of tenants associations, and in Church and faith groups.
    I am therefore confident that we will achieve the targets that we have set. On the basis of the departmental plans that we are publishing today, by the end of 2005, in the majority of Departments, women should hold between 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. of appointments to the bodies sponsored by those Departments.
    Helen Jackson: May I welcome the seminars being held jointly around the country with the support of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Women's National Commission and the women and equality unit? However, I echo the view that the Government need to do everything that they can to ensure that recruitment to those seminars includes women in employment in professions such as nursing and caring, who do not think that they have the right experience to sit on public bodies—whereas, in fact, they have exactly the experience needed by those bodies.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The women and equality unit is doing everything that it can to ensure that as wide a range of women as possible are attracted to those seminars, and that as many of them put themselves forward for public appointments as possible. I urge her and other hon. Friends to help in this process by encouraging women whom they know in their constituencies to attend those seminars and to put themselves forward for appointments for which they are eminently well qualified.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Conservatives have launched an active campaign to get women into public life. We shall certainly take positive measures in the light of the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which had cross-party support.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that progress on appointing more women in Departments is patchy? One blanket statistic disguises the fact that I am sure that she could name and shame certain Departments. Will she also tell the House whether the new diversity targets will apply to public appointments generally?
    Ms Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Lady's support for the steps that we are taking. We all look forward to some of her male colleagues being replaced at the next election by women Members of Parliament.
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): And by women Labour Members of Parliament.
    Ms Hewitt: Indeed. Of course, we seek to achieve much greater representation from the ethnic minority communities as well as from women. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends whose Departments are not yet on course to meet the 50 per cent. target to the additional steps that they need to take.

    Return to Work
    John Mann: What steps she is taking to make it easier for those mothers who want to return to work to do so. [33827]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have introduced a range of measures, including the national child care strategy and the new deal for lone parents, to help mothers who want to return to work. The Employment Bill currently before Parliament includes further measures to enable more mothers to remain in the labour market.
    John Mann: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. The fact that more people are in work than ever before is clear evidence of the sound economics and judgment of this Government. Will she consider the position of mothers in rural villages, and particularly issues such as the diversification of farms and access to broadband technology, to allow more mothers in rural villages to take up the opportunities that are becoming more widely available?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since 1997, the number of women in employment has increased by more than half a million, which is a tribute to the Government's sound economic policies. My hon. Friend is right about the particular difficulties faced by women in rural communities who want employment. The Small Business Service, through the farm business advisory service, is helping many women and men in farming communities to diversify into new areas of employment.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that many mothers, whatever their age, who want to return to work want either part-time jobs or jobs with flexible hours? Does she accept also that, while we must safeguard the health of employees in the workplace and other matters, it is important that the Government do not impose on employers too much cost or regulation in respect of those who want part-time jobs?
    Ms Hewitt: Of course a large number of women, and a significant minority of men, prefer to work less than full-time hours. We strongly encourage and support that. There is an increasing range of working hours in the public sector, especially in hospitals and the rest of the health service. I am proud of the fact that it was the Labour Government who introduced full-time rights for part-time workers and, with the national minimum wage, ensured that hundreds of thousands of very low-paid part-time women workers, who had been entirely neglected by the Conservative Government, now get a fair wage, as well as other help through the working families tax credit.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for the week beginning Monday 25 February?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business of the House for the week following constituency week is as follows: MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Homelessness Bill.
Motions relating to the Draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2002 and the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002.
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 1 MARCH—Debate on the achievements of the national lottery on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 4 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition Day. There will be a debate in the names of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. Subject to be announced.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am doing well with Wales in my statement so far.
WEDNESDAY 6 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Office of Communications Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 7 MARCH—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on policy on environmental taxation followed by a debate on the deployment of Ministry of Defence resources in the war against terrorism.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 8 MARCH—Debate on police on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 27 February 2002, there will be a debate relating to the Commission Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy in European Standing Committee A.
[Wednesday 27 February 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 7262/01, Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy; 7263/01, Report on the state of the resources and their expected development; 7377/01, Report on the economic and social situation of coastal regions; 7378/01, Report on the implementation of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture over the period 1993–2000. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-xiii (2000–01).]
Mr. Forth: I wonder whether the Leader of the House listened to his wireless this morning, when he would have
312
heard a reference to something called the performance and innovation unit's report on energy policy. The PIU is an important body that was set up to advise the Prime Minister, no less, and on this occasion to advise him on a matter vital to the nation's future, namely energy policy. Yet again it appears that the document or its contents were being liberally leaked on the wireless this morning, and I am told—although I can scarcely believe it—that it might even be available on something called a website at this very hour or thereabouts.
What is going on? Do I have to come to the Dispatch Box every single Thursday and give you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an example of the Government yet again gratuitously leaking vital documents before they come to the House? If the Leader of the House is going to tell me that we have been reduced to a website Parliament, that is simply not good enough. I want real live Ministers to come to the House of Commons and share with us what they are up to, not to leak things on mysterious electronic vehicles.
I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, which may require a whole day, on the subject "What is a British company?" That is an extraordinarily simple question, but one that seems utterly to defeat the Prime Minister. Yesterday he said:
"I am delighted that a British-based company has succeeded."
He was talking, of course, about the mysterious company LNM Holdings and the equally mysterious Mr. Mittal. He went on to say that the Government
"wanted to celebrate the fact that the contract"—
that is a steel contract—
"had been awarded to a British company".—[Official Report, 13 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 199.]
The Prime Minister could not have been clearer on that, but we need to know, and it may well take a debate to tease it out, whether, in his mind, a British company is one that is registered here, which this one appears not to be; one in which the majority of shareholders are British, which they appear not to be in this case; or one in which the majority of employees are British, which appears not to be the case here. What, then, is a British company? That question is important because the Prime Minister is writing letters in which he appears to be utterly confused as to what a British company is. That is a serious matter, because if the British Prime Minister does not know what a British company is and he is prepared to back companies against genuinely British companies, which has been the case here, the sooner we get to the bottom of it the better. If such a debate helped the Prime Minister to understand what a British company is, we would have done everybody a great favour.
I hope that the House and the Leader are aware of the Public Administration Committee's excellent report, published this very morning, on the important matter of the reform of the second Chamber. I hope that the Leader will give us an undertaking that we will have an early debate on the report, because it sets out the way ahead in a positive and helpful way and, not least, recommends the establishment of a Joint Committee, something for which the Opposition have been urging for some time. It also gives a timetable for realistic and responsible progress on the matter. I hope that we can hear from the Leader that he is prepared to take up those suggestions and guarantee that we will make that progress towards the culmination of the reform of the upper House.

313
Finally, may I draw the Leader's attention to today's edition of The Mirror, which has the huge headline "Moore Shame"? Jo Moore has appeared in our lives yet again, and in quite the most dreadful way. I hope that the Leader can deny absolutely the story in The Mirror and elsewhere, and if he cannot, I hope that he will get the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come here to deny that this dreadful woman has, yet again, sought to take advantage of the most distressing and appalling circumstances. We really have heard enough of her; I do not want to hear of her, about her or from her ever again, and I hope that the Leader of the House can give us that promise.
Mr. Cook: It may be Valentine's day outside, but there is obviously no love-in in here. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no one will ever attempt to put him on a website, and he will be able to stick to his wireless.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of the performance and information unit as a very important body. [HON. MEMBERS: "Innovation, not information."] Of course. Innovation sums up its fresh look at Departments. The PIU was set up by this Government, not the Conservative Government, precisely to provide an independent assessment of departmental work and to ensure that fresh minds were brought to bear on that. There has never been an occasion on which a PIU report has been brought to the House by means of a statement.
Mr. Forth: Why not?
Mr. Cook: I explained that to the right hon. Gentleman. These are reports to Ministers, not announcements of Government policy. The Government will now reflect on what the PIU has said and reach conclusions, and I am authorised by my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to say that when they are in a position to announce their response to the PIU report, they will of course make a statement to Parliament. I expect that the House will want to hold them to that commitment.
On the question of Mr. Mittal, he is resident in Britain, his headquarters are here and he employs 100 British citizens here. [Interruption.] I honestly do not think that any of them would find that comical, unlike Opposition Members. I can think of many hundreds of British citizens who would wish to be employed in London. If it is to be a matter of criticism to lobby for a company with British connections, I plead guilty. For four years, as Foreign Secretary, I lobbied for hundreds of such companies, some of which were successful. Nowadays, I suppose that I would be expected to apologise for lobbying successfully on behalf of such companies. Sometimes I lobbied on behalf of Swedish companies because British aerospace industries provide large numbers of components for the Grippen aircraft made by a Swedish primary contractor.
It is right that Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers should lobby for people who are employed in Britain. The two most recent Conservative Prime Ministers did precisely that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes they did. The only difference is that we do not know whether the companies on whose behalf they lobbied had made any donation to their party; we have been transparent, but they kept the donations to their party secret.
314
I end by trying to make the right hon. Gentleman happier. He asked for a denial of the story in The Mirror. I am pleased to give him the categorical denial that the e-mail that appears in The Mirror today is a fabrication; there was no such e-mail; there was no suggestion that the report should come out on Friday; and there was no disagreement on the matter between Mr. Sixsmith and Jo Moore, who was not responsible for what The Mirror alleges.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On Monday business in the House finished at 5.40 pm; tomorrow, the House is not sitting; on the Friday after we return we have a debate on a general subject, the lottery; and the following week my right hon. Friend has announced an estimates day. Taking those matters into account, is it not clear that the Government had—and have—ample time for the promised debate on hunting with dogs? Is it not now eight months since the Queen's Speech promised to introduce that? Many Labour Members are fed up with the Government's procrastination and their failure to fulfil both a manifesto pledge and a commitment in the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Cook: The commitment in the Queen's Speech was to have a free vote during the course of this Session. I know of no reason why that commitment will not be fulfilled. There are other commitments in the Queen's Speech that have not yet been fulfilled because we are only halfway through the Session. A number of Bills in the Queen's Speech have still to be brought before the House; they mostly will be brought before the House, and I am sure that there will be a free vote on hunting.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to give Members an indication of the time scale for considering the Modernisation Committee's report on Select Committees, and to deal with rumours about its recommendations, particularly in relation to the payment of Select Committee Chairs?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are not having that.
Mr. Tyler: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and hope that he and I will stand shoulder to shoulder on that issue when it is debated.
On the Public Administration Committee report which appeared today, does the Leader of the House accept that, to use his own terms, there is a centre of gravity around which he can develop consensus on reform of the second Chamber. Does he accept that there is no excuse for the dinosaur tendency, represented by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to do nothing? We have to do something and get on with it; can we please twist his arm to get on? When can we debate the report?
Finally, last week, the Leader of the House kicked into touch my suggestion that it was time to review the issue of public funding of our democratic system. In view of the obvious briefing from No. 10 in the past few days to the effect that state funding is again in the frame, when can we debate that important issue which Members on both sides of the House clearly believe needs to be reviewed? [Interruption.]
Mr. Cook: Let me try to make some peace in this unseemly exchange. I welcome the fact that the hon.

315
Gentleman has given me an opportunity to refer to the report that the Modernisation Committee issued on Monday on reforming the scrutiny committees. I believe that the report offers the House a way forward. In particular, it sets out a system of nomination to Select Committees which would be independent, authoritative and transparent and would make it plain that Parliament has control over who sits on the Committees that scrutinise Government. It also provides substantial additional resources to support Select Committees in their important and often technical work on financial scrutiny and provides a clear statement of their core tasks.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the reference to an increase in pay for chairs of Select Committees should be seen in that context and kept in proportion. There is a view in the House that there should be an alternative career structure for MPs through scrutiny and for that reason the Modernisation Committee on balance has put forward a proposal that the House should consider in principal whether the Chairs of Select Committees should be paid. However, that is a matter for the House and I recognise that there will be differing opinions on it. I look forward to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on that occasion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I welcome interest in this statement, but perhaps hon. Members will let me finish. I welcome one clear signal that comes from the Public Administration Committee's report on the House of Lords, although I have not yet had an opportunity to scrutinise it in full. I can only say that the report has been produced on the basis of unanimity. That shows that it is possible to find a centre of gravity among those who wish to reform the second Chamber. I promised some time ago that consultation would be followed by a period of reflection. We promised that we would not conclude consultation until we received the Select Committee report and we will now consider carefully its conclusions.
On public funding, the Government have no proposals or plans to introduce the public funding of political parties. I note that we would not secure a consensus across the Floor were we to do so. It is a matter for legitimate debate and I am sure that hon. Members will be looking for ways of raising it in the House.
Ann Clwyd: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 779 on Saudi Arabia?
[That this House notes the recent widespread reporting of the use of torture in Saudi Arabian jails, particularly against a number of British nationals accused of participation in bombings in Saudi Arabia; recalls the disturbing findings of the 1997 report entitled 'Torture in Saudi Arabia: No Protection, No Redress' published by the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group and REDRESS; condemns the use of torture in any circumstances; and affirms that the provisions of the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture must serve as the standard to be upheld by all governments.
Is it not time that we had a debate in the House on our relationship with that country, given that Conservative Members lobbied so hard for the Al Yamanah arms deal;
316
that a previous Conservative Prime Minister was involved in that lobbying; and that we have no information about it because the National Audit Office report was never published. Given that British nationals continue to be tortured in Saudi Arabia and that most of those involved in the incident on 11 September in New York were also Saudi Arabian citizens, the time for soft shoe diplomacy in our relations with Saudi Arabia is over. We should face up to torturers and have a proper discussion of our future relationship with that country.
Mr. Cook: Foreign affairs are discussed in the House on a regular basis and I am sure that there will be opportunities for my hon. Friend to press this point with my colleagues at the Foreign Office. I assure the House that vigorous and repeated representations have been made to the Saudi Arabian Government in connection with those who are detained. They go back some time; indeed, I repeatedly raised the case of one detainee who was released last year. I can assure the House that the Government have full regard to protecting the interests and rights of British citizens who are detained and will proceed in the way that we believe is the best way of preserving their rights, protecting their standards and respecting the wishes of their relatives.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As yesterday's answers from the Prime Minister concerning the LMN Holdings affair were widely seen as woefully inadequate, and as the Leader of the House failed to answer properly the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) a few moments ago, is it not essential that the Prime Minister should come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement so that we can ask how many companies employing fewer than 100 people have been assisted in this way; why it is right that a company that is registered in a Caribbean tax haven is helped by the Prime Minister in that way; why a company with less than 1 per cent. of its work force in this country is helped in this way; and just how many companies have been the subject of representations from the Prime Minister to the Romanian Prime Minister?
Mr. Cook: I suspect that whatever the Prime Minister says will not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. For the record, whenever I was asked to lobby on behalf of a company with a British base, I never asked how many people it employed or introduced a threshold before making representations on its behalf. I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman or any member of the Conservative party making representations to Lord Ashcroft about the fact that his business was based in Belize rather than Britain during the years when he handled the party's entire finances.
Jane Griffiths: I shall not ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the performance and innovation unit's report on energy efficiency to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred earlier. Clearly, that would not be right. Apparently, it recommended a step change in energy efficiency, and I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome that. Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome the Home Energy Conservation Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown

317
(Dr. Turner) promoted? Will he try to ensure that ample time is made available for debating the important subject of energy efficiency?
Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have tried to be helpful during the passage of that Bill. [Interruption.] We have. The measure has been in Committee, and the relevant Minister has held discussions with the sponsors. I hope that we can make progress and that the Bill will reach the statute book. However, we need co-operation not only from the Government but from the sponsors.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I appeal to the Leader of the House seriously to consider holding a debate on Zimbabwe, in Government time on the Floor of the main Chamber. He knows that the Swedish head of the EU observers was recently refused accreditation. I have just heard that Sir Garfield Todd, the former Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, a former Senator in Zimbabwe and a citizen for 67 years, has effectively been disfranchised along with some 2 million other Zimbabwean citizens. I believe that we should have a timely debate to ascertain whether any hon. Members have constructive ideas to help the people of Zimbabwe. That is the least we can do for that country.
Mr. Cook: The House shares the hon. Lady's anxiety. The subject has frequently been discussed in the House and I anticipate that it will continue to be debated. I know Pierre Schori personally, and he has a wealth of experience of Africa and the third world through years as a Minister with responsibility for development in the Swedish Government. He is a man of integrity and impartiality, and he is an excellent choice to head the observers on behalf of the EU. I deplore the difficulties that have been placed in his way and that of other observers. We should bear it in mind that, most of all, the people of Zimbabwe want independent observers in order to moderate the intimidation and thuggery to which they are subjected. I assure the hon. Lady that we are taking every possible measure to ensure that observers get in.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on the Floor of the House on early-day motion 800 entitled "Safety of Ships and Seafarers at Sea"?
[That this House congratulates the MV Derbyshire Family Association and their supporters for their successful campaign to re-open the formal investigation into the sinking of MV Derbyshire with the loss of 44 lives in the Pacific Ocean during typhoon Orchid in 1980; congratulates the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institution on their exhaustive survey of the wreck at a depth of two and a half miles; thanks the Government for re-opening the formal investigation in the light of this survey; observes that the re-opened formal investigation attributed the sinking to the weakness of the foredeck hatch covers, with consequent bow flooding; notes that the assessors at the original formal investigation, although instructed not to provide conclusions, had nevertheless concluded that the ship's crew had been negligent; notes that no apology for this has been received by the families of crew members, notes that Mr. Justice Colman made many important recommendations at the end of the reopened formal investigation but that none of
318
these appear yet to have been implemented; notes that before 1980 two of MV Derbyshire's five sister ships of similar construction had suffered structural damage, that after 1980 all suffered structural damage, one sank and one was scrapped, and that between 1980 and 1998 over 40 bulk carriers have been lost at sea with a further loss of 1,634 seafarers; and calls upon the Government to schedule a debate in Government time on safety at sea, and to ensure that Mr. Justice Colman's recommendations are implemented as a matter of urgency.]
Since the sinking of the merchant vessel Derbyshire in 1980, bulk carriers have been lost at the rate of one a month world wide. Last year, after the completion of the official inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire, Mr. Justice Colman made several recommendations that would save thousands of lives at sea. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to a debate on the matter.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important early-day motion and an important subject. All hon. Members will have been shocked by the figures for loss at sea to which he refers. I shall consider my hon. Friend's comments and refer them to the appropriate Department to ensure that when we consider safety—we shall probably do that in the next Session—we adopt as many recommendations as we can.
Adam Price: The Leader of the House will know that I first raised the matter of the links between the Government and LNM Holdings and Ispat International (UK) Ltd. at business questions two weeks ago. The Leader of the House replied:
"I will investigate the matter and make sure that one of my colleagues responds to the hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 433.]
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the investigation is proceeding? When can I expect a response? Given that the press is questioning the accuracy of the Government's statements on this affair, is it not vital that we should have a full debate on the Floor of the House so that we can preserve the integrity of Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I cannot think of anything more preposterous than the House having a full day's debate every time a Minister of the Crown lobbies on behalf of a company with a British connection. Nor have I heard anything more preposterous than the claims of Plaid Cymru that, somehow or other, Corns was disadvantaged by LNM succeeding in Romania, when Corns was not even bidding in Romania.
John Mann: I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall the case of my constituent Diane Blood. I want to raise a question about her son, Liam Blood. The rest of us have the opportunity to claim our parents as our own on our birth certificate. Will the Leader of the House consider how we could frame legislation to enable my constituent Liam Blood to fill in the blank space on his birth certificate that should rightly be filled with the name of his deceased father? In so doing, my right hon. Friend would be maintaining the commitment to introduce such legislation made when a private Member's Bill fell before I was elected to the House.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profound issue, on which there will be different views within the House.

319
I fully respect the importance of the point that he raises; these are sensitive matters for the individuals concerned. I am not sure that the Government would have it in mind to introduce legislation on such a difficult and sensitive point, on which there are different views. I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's wish to see the matter handled by private Member's legislation, and we would make sure, if possible, that if such a Bill were introduced, it would receive a fair hearing in the House.
Sir George Young: May I press the Leader of the House on a matter that has already been raised twice, namely the Public Administration Committee's report? Does he recognise that the report speaks of the importance of "maintaining the momentum", and outlines a programme involving a Government response in April and a draft Bill in June? Does he agree that that is an entirely reasonable timetable, to which the Government should seek to adhere?
Mr. Cook: I fully accept the importance of maintaining the momentum on this issue, and I welcome the fact, as I have said, that the Select Committee has demonstrated that it is possible, by unanimity, to achieve consensus. We shall continue to look for that, and to try to identify that centre of gravity. Given that that will necessarily mean trying to find common ground among people of different views, I would not fix myself to a particular date on the calendar, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are trying to maintain that momentum.
Thu Loughton: The Leader of the House has heard the surprise expressed on both sides of the House about the lack of a statement on the energy policy announcement today, although it may fashion energy policy for the next 20 years. He is also reluctant to take any further questions about a debate on the subject of the British company LNM. May I suggest a way of killing two birds with one stone, to save parliamentary time? Will the right hon. Gentleman instigate a debate on energy policy—and, in particular, energy efficiency—to consider the interests of British companies operating in eastern Europe, especially steel companies in Romania, in relation to their energy efficiency and their record on greenhouse gas emissions, and in relation to the question of improving energy efficiency, in contrast to companies operating more conventionally in the United Kingdom which may be called British companies? Such considerations could also examine whether energy inefficiency and greenhouse gas emissions by British companies now operating in Romania should count against greenhouse gas emission targets for British companies operating out of the United Kingdom. That is a very important point.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, although I nearly got lost halfway through the long paragraph that followed his opening question. We should remain clear, in all our exchanges on this matter, that we want countries in central and eastern Europe, such as Romania, to come into the European Union. We want to support the steps that are necessary for that, such as economic reform and the privatisation of their big state monopolies. We certainly also want them to play their
320
part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions within the overall European basket, to ensure that we fulfil our Kyoto target. All of that is a necessary part of coming into the European Union.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 755, on gender equality in the Church of England, which notes that the Church of England and, of course, the Church in Wales are exempted from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
[That this House notes the Church of England is exempted from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 due to the attitudes and activities of a minority who are in disagreement with the ordination of women; affirms the need to strengthen and forward the movement against discrimination on grounds of gender; trusts the Church will thus be encouraged to catch up speedily with the vast majority of institutions; and believes that the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury could provide the perfect opportunity to forge leadership which would unite the Church of England behind justice for women and end the unfortunate and embarrassing need for 'flying' bishops.]
I remind my right hon. Friend that, sadly, the Church in Wales has lagged behind the Church of England in respect of the ordination of women. Does he agree that, if the established Church and other denominations wish to be relevant in contemporary society, they must abide by the principle of equality for women and men before the law?
Mr. Cook: As a lapsed Presbyterian from Scotland, I am badly qualified to respond to that question.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know from his sojourn in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the Republic of Ireland's Criminal Assets Bureau to some extent mirrors the body that we are trying to introduce through the Proceeds of Crime Bill. On a recent visit to Dublin, we discovered a basic difference between that Bill and similar legislation in that country. Our Bill will affect only criminals who have appeared before the courts twice. Before it completes its remaining stages in the House and the other place, can we establish whether it is wise to allow two strikes in that way? As our experience shows, many godfathers who have never appeared before the courts have enriched themselves through the proceeds of crime.
Mr. Cook: I assume from the hon. Gentleman's last point that he is fully behind the Bill's principle, which is to ensure that criminals cannot profit from their crimes and that such profits can be returned to the community. Of course, there will be an opportunity to explore the Bill's detail during the two full days of its remaining stages. We have given an undertaking that there will be six full hours of debate on both days, and the hon. Gentleman still has time to table an amendment if he so wishes.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend recall his answer to my request of several months ago, during business questions, for a debate on the energy review? He said that the appropriate time for such a debate was following the review's publication. Notwithstanding his assurance that the Government will make a statement on the energy review in due course,

321
does he agree that there is an argument for having that debate now, so that the views of the House can inform the Government statement?
Mr. Cook: Of course, I am well aware that my hon. Friend and several other hon. Members have expressed an interest in the energy review as it has proceeded, but I repeat that the review is not yet complete. There must be a Government response to the study, which may be published in the form of a Government publication, and which will certainly be introduced in a statement in the House. Of course, any Member can seek to debate the matter in, for example, Westminster Hall, and I am sure that a number of my colleagues will examine such options.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Leader of the House has announced only one day for debating the final stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. Because of the shambolic way in which the Government administered and programmed its Committee stage, at least 36 clauses and seven schedules remain entirely undiscussed. The Bill deals with very important matters, and although it does not give rise to controversy between the parties, details such as the introduction of an entirely new youth justice system in Northern Ireland are terribly important. That is a poor way to treat the people of Northern Ireland and a dreadful way to treat legislation. Will the Leader of the House reconsider the way in which the Bill is proceeding in Committee?
Mr. Cook: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the Bill, which reforms the court system, is an important one for the people of Northern Ireland, and I hope that the House can make progress on it. I should point out that adequate time was provided for its consideration in Committee, although I fully understand his frustration with those proceedings. Programme motions provide a basis for full scrutiny of a Bill, but they do impose a discipline on members of the Committee to ensure that debate focuses on the major issues.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend spoke previously about the Government requiring a lengthy period of reflection to digest the comments on Lords reform. Given that a unanimously agreed Public Administration Committee report was completed in little more than a month, will the Government stick to the convention of replying to it within two months?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having joined the consensus on the Committee and I even more warmly congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on having persuaded him to do so. I do not recall using the word "lengthy" for the period of reflection, but I would not wish to use the word "rushed". We must proceed with care, but also with all expedition to ensure that we maintain the momentum to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred earlier. The requirement on the Government is to respond to Select Committee reports within two months and we shall endeavour to achieve that deadline.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Following the precedent that has now been set by the Prime Minister in lobbying for small companies, will the Leader of the House today give us an assurance that in future, Ministers will always be ready to meet companies that employ perhaps 200 constituents and which have problems with Government policy, whether or not the companies have given money to the Labour party?
Mr. Cook: As I said earlier, the common-sense question is whether the Prime Minister should have supported a company with British connections in its bid—[Interruption.] The company in question has British connections. Mr. Mittal is a British resident and he employs 100 people in Britain. I do not understand why Opposition Members are so scornful of companies that employ 100 people in Britain. As for small businesses, my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry regularly meet representatives of the small business sector and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate in the near future in which we could congratulate the Chancellor on his work in beating off efforts by the European Commission to cap public expenditure? Could that debate include an examination of the stability pact and the impact that it would have on public expenditure in Britain, should we be so foolish as to join the euro now?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point about the euro robustly, and I am sure that he will have many occasions on which to do so in the future.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I wish to return to the subject of the energy review, which is now available to hon. Members, and to express my regret that we cannot take the opportunity to congratulate the Government on the Cabinet Office's apparently bold position on renewable energy. The review starts with a sentence from the Prime Minister:
"I hope that this report will launch a thorough debate."
Why cannot that thorough debate occur here, especially as we had an extensive debate on the last major performance and innovation unit report, on sub-post offices, within hours of its publication?
Mr. Cook: Of course, the hon. Gentleman will understand the distinction between a debate and a statement. I welcome his support for the conclusions of the report, and I also welcome the emphasis that it places on conservation and the tight targets that it sets for energy conservation in British homes. I certainly would not wish the hon. Gentleman to feel inhibited from expressing his support on any occasion offered to him.
Paul Flynn: When may we debate early-day motion 841?
[That this House notes that the principle of funding political parties from public funds has been accepted in the allocation of Short money; and believes that reliance on funding from individuals and companies intent on influencing political decisions could be largely eliminated

323
by funding main parties activities in the same manner with moneys allocated by an independent trust on the basis of votes cast in past elections.]
That would give us an opportunity to celebrate with some pride the fact that in recent history not one British Government of any political colour has been corrupt. Those who make such accusations do more to demean themselves than they do to demean the standing and reputation of British democracy. As the principle of public funding of parties has been accepted by all the parties in the House, and as the sum of £25 million will be paid in this Parliament to opposition parties, is it not a small step to extend the funding to other party activities so that parties can be absolved from accusations of corruption—some of which are legitimate but many of which are mischievous?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a contribution to a debate that will continue for some time, both in public and in the House, and he raises an important point for consideration. We do have public funding of the official Opposition, which I have not noticed them resisting. My hon. Friend fairly asks them to consider whether that principle should be confined to them or shared more widely.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the teaching of geography in schools, especially Scottish public schools, given the Prime Minister's remarkable assertion that the Dutch Antilles are British? It is easy to see how his confusion has arisen because he travels around the world so much that he does not really know where Britain is, let alone the Dutch Antilles. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has now gathered enough air miles to visit them. Could that debate be tied to a more serious debate about the Government's much-vaunted foreign policy and whether it is ethical to say to a country that is keen to join the EU that its membership could be affected by whether it gives an important contract to a company that supports a British political party or to a French company that does not?
Mr. Cook: I conclude from the hon. Gentleman's final sentence that he would have preferred the French company to receive the contract. I have to say that he will find himself very lonely among the British public. As for his remarks about the Dutch Antilles, I merely ask him why the Conservative party was content to accept Lord Ashcroft as a British treasurer when he was based in Belize. I should be interested to hear from Conservative Members how many people Lord Ashcroft employed in Britain.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House will have discovered from his careful reading of the newspapers that the Government have published findings and recommendations on flood defences and future expenditure on them. That will have an enormous impact on constituencies such as mine and its neighbour City of York, which experienced severe flooding November 2000 and face serious flood threats as I speak.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a full debate on a Government motion dealing with the implications of that? I am thinking particularly of the notion of charging householders a levy, thus making them personally responsible for houses that may have been built
324
by developers who secured huge commercial gain. The current law absolves householders from any prior knowledge when they purchase their homes.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the importance of this issue in a number of parts of Britain, particularly the hon. Lady's region, and of the concern about rising water levels that has been felt over the past few days. It is because the Government attach so much importance to the matter that we have tried to proceed as rapidly as possible with flood defences, which often constitute a complex and long-term engineering project. I assure the hon. Lady that I will draw her remarks to the attention of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is fully seized of the position.
I agree that those who built houses in places exposed to flooding should reflect on their responsibility to people who bought the houses in good faith.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The House will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's weasel words. He did not describe LNM Holdings as a British company, as the Prime Minister did yesterday not once, not twice, but three times. It has now been downgraded to "a company with British connections". May we, as a matter of urgency, have a debate in Government time on the interpretation of the English language by the Prime Minister and other Ministers?
May we also have an opportunity to explore the fact that, notwithstanding the disingenuous suggestion by the Leader of the House that no one in Britain could possibly suffer as a result of LNM's takeover of the Romanian steel firm, companies—including companies in my constituency in which jobs depend on the success of Corns—will be hugely damaged by the ability of a friend of and donor to the Labour party to undercut Corns worldwide and cost British jobs as a consequence of the Prime Minister's wholly inappropriate intervention on behalf of a company. 01 per cent. of whose work force are employed in Britain?
Mr. Cook: Of course British industry faces a growing challenge across the board from the countries of central and eastern Europe, which in many respects provide a lower production base. That challenge would remain constant regardless of who had acquired the privatised steel industry in Romania. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is supposed to be his party's objective to support countries such as Romania in their preparations for membership of the European Union.
I am bewildered at how far behind the times the Conservative party has fallen. It now discusses whether we should support only companies that are officially registered in Britain. Millions of people in Britain are employed by companies that are not registered in Britain, and are not British in the legal sense. That should not prevent the Government from lobbying on their behalf, and on behalf of the people whom they employ.
Mr. Colin Breed: Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House whether he could secure an urgently needed statement from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the readiness of the Trident refit complex at Devonport. Since then, not only has there been no statement but it has been

325
revealed that the estimate for completion of the complex has risen by some £400 million, and that HMS Vanguard sits awaiting its refit while the complex remains uncertificated by the nuclear installations inspectorate.
May I ask again for that urgently needed statement? Could it be made on our return after the break? I think the Leader of the House said that this was not just a constituency issue but a national issue.
Mr. Cook: It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman has within him an excellent speech for the forthcoming debate, and I urge him to stay in the Chamber to make it.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the very important issue that was raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) yesterday in the debate on the report by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, namely, the relationship of the Prime Minister to the ministerial code and its enforcement? In advance of such a debate, can the Leader of the House make available the suppressed internal Labour party document about the Leicester, East Labour party? We could then discover what the Prime Minister knew—he did know about goings on in Leicester, East—when he appointed the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) as a Minister. As The Guardian said on 15 March:

"It seems extraordinary the lengths to which Mr. Blair and Mr. Cook have gone to defend the man".
Mr. Cook: I invite the hon. Gentleman to move on. We debated these issues yesterday and took a decision. The hon. Member at the centre of this is now suspended from the House. The hon. Gentleman should find something to occupy his intellect and passion.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Is the Leader of the House aware that last week I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and faxed his private office asking for his urgent intervention in the case of a cancer patient in my constituency, since when I have heard absolutely nothing? I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman because the constituent in question was operated on for cancer in November and was told by the surgeon that she would require radiotherapy within four to six weeks. Since then she has been told by national health service managers that she will have to wait up to 16 weeks—until March—and that there is no possibility of her having radiotherapy before then.
Unfortunately, that is not an isolated incident in east Sussex, but is typical of the lack of resources and sheer shambles in cancer treatment in the south-east. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House, make a statement, accept responsibility for that failure and tell us when he will get a grip on cancer care in east Sussex?
Mr. Cook: Of course the whole House will—[Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) will allow me to respond in my own way. The whole House will, of course, share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the individual case that he raises. I am not sure that I would serve the House well if I were to commit myself to bringing the Secretary of State for Health to the House for a debate on one case, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to increasing substantially the number of cancer specialists
326
in the NHS. Unfortunately, it takes seven years to train a cancer specialist. If the Government of the party he represents had increased rather than cut the number of trainee consultants, we might have a better service in his constituency.
Norman Lamb: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to another aspect of the crisis in Zimbabwe: the urgent need for reconstruction in the country if Robert Mugabe were to lose the election in four weeks' time? Last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and I met senior officials of the Movement for Democratic Change in Johannesburg. What was striking was that, despite all the obstacles that have been placed in their way, they still believe that they can win the election. However, they stressed that there was a vital need for assistance in the reconstruction of the country, which has been ruined by corrupt rule over many years. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Britain's role in the reconstruction of Zimbabwe and on what we can do to assist, bearing in mind the urgent need for that to happen as soon as possible were Robert Mugabe to lose the election?
Mr. Cook: Although it would be premature to debate what we would do in the event of President Mugabe's defeat, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point on which my colleagues will be reflecting even now. It gave us no pleasure to withdraw economic development aid from Zimbabwe and we took that step only because it was impossible to work with President Mugabe's Administration. Nothing that we could achieve through aid would undo the damage that he is inflicting on Zimbabwe's economy. If we can find partners in Zimbabwe to work on the country's reconstruction on behalf of its people, they will find Britain a willing partner.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), does the Leader of the House recall from his time as Foreign Secretary any example of an ambassador losing his diaries? Does he believe that Ambassador Ralph, our man in Bucharest, lost his diaries, or were they buried by the Labour spin machine? Can we have a statement from the Prime Minister on this sorry event?
Mr. Cook: I must confess that I am not up to speed on the allegation of Mr. Ralph having lost his diary, but I know the gentleman in question. In fact, I think that I appointed him to the post. He is an excellent diplomat. I believe that it is absolutely right for Britain, as a champion of EU enlargement, to send a strong message of welcome for Prime Minister Nastase's bold decision to break up Romania's monopoly state-owned steel industry, which is a sign of the important preparations he is making for EU membership.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Leader of the House will recall that, before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister said that there were 24 hours to save the national health service. Since then, the NHS has developed severe problems, crime in our inner cities has soared and, in some instances, public transport is close

327
to collapse. Can we have a general debate on our public services? May I suggest that the Prime Minister takes time out of his busy worldwide schedule to lead that debate so that we can scrutinise his actions in relation to our great public services?
Mr. Cook: The House has just been treated to the hon. Gentleman's next constituency report. May I put his remarks in context? Since this Government came to office, we have 20,000 more nurses and thousands more doctors in the NHS. For the first time in 30 years, we have more general and acute beds in the NHS. If the Conservative Government had paid the same attention to it, we would be in a better state. We are making as much progress as we can possibly hope to achieve from the low base that the Conservatives left us.
Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Minister responding to the recent social care debate said that she would investigate the allegation by the 15 social services departments in the south-west that the funding crisis is so severe that they have to divert money from care of the elderly to prop up child care and child protection? When the investigation is complete, will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House?
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a statement, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health and invite him to ensure that he communicates with the hon. Gentleman when the study is complete.
Mr. John Baron: To provide clarification for all small and medium-sized businesses based in this country, will the Leader of the House say whether the Prime Minister is prepared to write a letter on behalf of companies employing 100 or more people that are trying to win contracts overseas?
Mr. Cook: The Government have given full support to companies of whatever size that try to win contracts overseas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get the same service the next time any British business acquires a steel mill in central or eastern Europe.

Point of Order
Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful for your assistance. I have used, as far as I can, my ingenuity to try to obtain an answer from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to letters sent by HF Holidays, proprietors of the Freshwater Bay hotel in my constituency, on 20 June and 27 July last year, to my letter of 15 August and to my questions of 6 and 23 November, one of which was replied to incorrectly on 17 December. I tabled a further question on 5 February, to which I received a holding answer. I have still received no substantive answer, so will you please advise me on what further ingenuity I might exercise in this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I always found, in the Tea Room in the old days, that more senior Members of the House usually gave advice and assistance in such matters. If the hon. Gentleman feels stuck, I suggest that he consult some senior Members. I hope that that is helpful.

Defence Policy
[Relevant documents: Defence Policy 2001; MOD Policy Papers—Paper No. 1—Defence Diplomacy; MOD Policy Papers—Paper No. 2—Multinational Defence Co-operation; MOD Policy Papers—Paper No. 3—European Defence; The Future Strategic Context for Defence; The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter—Public Discussion Paper.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
1.25 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Today's debate on defence policy is the first of a series of one-day defence debates planned for this Session. This marks a change from our previous practice of having a two-day debate and three one-day debates. It is part of a wider effort to improve the arrangements for allowing the House to debate defence issues.
This is an agreed change, building on helpful advice from the Defence Committee with regard to concerns that two-day debates were becoming less effective. We plan, therefore, to retain the three one-day debates on procurement, personnel and defence in the world, which have worked well. The two new one-day debates on defence policy and defence in the UK will provide a better opportunity for hon. Members to raise particular concerns.
It is appropriate that this debate on defence policy should be the first under the new arrangements. Defence policy underpins all that we do, including, most obviously, the involvement of our armed forces in Afghanistan. We also had to re-examine aspects of our defence policy in the light of the appalling events of 11 September and the continuing campaign against international terrorism.
Today's debate coincides with the release of a public discussion document on a new chapter to the strategic defence review. I shall say more about that in due course, but we would like to stimulate more debate about defence policy. Rather than producing one large and rather indigestible defence White Paper every year, we have undertaken to produce annual memorandums on defence policy—shorter, crisper and, I hope, more readable documents that set out our current policies more clearly. These memorandums will be supported by a series of stand-alone policy papers on specific subjects, aimed at an informed and interested audience, and available at no charge to the media, academia and members of the public.
Three of these policy papers have already been produced—on defence diplomacy, multinational defence co-operation, and European defence. We have also published a more detailed paper entitled, "The Future Strategic Context for Defence". Our defence policy is set against this strategic context. It sets out how we propose to respond to changes in the international strategic environment, and how we hope to shape it.
The period since the fall of the Berlin wall has been one of significant change. Before the end of the cold war, it seemed unlikely that a potential adversary would risk a direct military confrontation with the United Kingdom or with NATO. Since then, we have been forced to recognise other risks and sources of instability in the world, with environmental, demographic, economic and social changes becoming ever more likely causes of conflict.
330
Multinational peace support operations have become an increasingly important feature of international security. The operational demands on our forces are not diminishing. Almost a whole generation of British service men and women has become accustomed to operations in the Balkans, for example, where we have seen continuing instability right on the border of western Europe.
In this rapidly changing world, NATO remains the cornerstone of our security and defence policy, and our instrument of first choice for managing crises. It has proved its worth across the Balkans—most recently in Macedonia—and in supporting the continuing operations in Afghanistan. The Prague summit later this year will give us an opportunity to ensure that NATO is even better placed to face the challenges of the foreseeable future and to maintain its efficiency and effectiveness.
However, our common membership of NATO alongside the United States, and our experience of operating alongside US troops, have demonstrated the size of the gap between the military capability of the United States and that of Europe.
It is a gap that is growing. The United States is willing to invest substantial new sums in defence capabilities and military technology. With technology developing at an increasing rate, the capability gap with Europe could grow still wider.
That is why we have emphasised the need for European nations to work together to strengthen their military capabilities. Instead of simply pursuing narrow national agendas, we must co-operate so that, together, we can play a more effective role in the modern security environment. Only through such co-operation will we be able to make a more effective contribution to the alliance and undertake military crisis response operations where NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged. That is why the UK has supported the EU's headline goal so strongly.
This is about ensuring that Europe makes better and more effective use of its resources. It is about co-operating to deliver increased defence capabilities. It is not about Europe competing with the United States. That is why we have been so insistent about avoiding the duplication of capabilities, through ensuring that the European Union has access to military assets—such as operational planning and command and control—that NATO can already offer.
We will also continue to work closely with the United States—our closest ally—to enhance our military capabilities. It makes perfect sense, for example, for us to invest jointly with the US in technology development and acquisition; our co-operation with the US on the joint strike fighter provides an excellent example.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Before the Secretary of State leaves the European dimension, will he tell us how persuasive he has been in getting his European counterparts to increase their defence expenditure? They have not been doing that and the United States is feeling increasingly dismissive about it.
Mr. Hoon: Of course it is important that European nations should increase their defence expenditure, but it is equally important that the product of that expenditure should be effective. European nations need to co-operate more effectively to deliver military capabilities where we lag behind the United States. The hon. Gentleman needs

331
to think through the implications of that. I know that he thinks deeply and seriously about defence, but in so doing he must recognise that to contribute to the alliance, European nations need to work more co-operatively, rather than less—which I suspect is his political position.
Harry Cohen: If, as my right hon. Friend says, the European defence project is not about competing with the United States, why should it compete with the US on costs and spending?
Mr. Hoon: There is a huge discrepancy in spending—even between the United Kingdom, which has a good record on defence spending, and the United States. The size of the current proposed increase in US defence spending is rather higher than the entire UK defence budget. The project is not about competition in that sense; we are playing in a different division. It is certainly about ensuring that we have military assets and capabilities that can be useful, especially when operating alongside those of the US.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the cost of the Eurofighter has ballooned to more than £20 billion?
Mr. Hoon: There is a range of different explanations, but undoubtedly the main one is the need to ensure that we have a world-class aircraft that will provide combat security for the United Kingdom well into the current century.
Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State's rather bland answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) reveals nothing. Presumably, Eurofighter was a world-class aeroplane when it cost £16 billion. The figure announced this morning is £21.5 billion. The cost of Eurofighter has gone up by £5.5 billion and the aircraft has been delayed by a year. Why is that?
Mr. Hoon: As I said before, there is a range of explanations. Many of the delays occurred when the previous Government were responsible for Eurofighter—as did many of the cost increases. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to rise to his feet if, as a result of cost constraints, there were difficulties with the performance or effectiveness of Eurofighter. He cannot have it both ways: he complains either that the aircraft is not sufficiently capable for the purposes for which it was designed, or that we are not spending enough money on it. He cannot argue in both directions.
I have focused on our military capabilities, but we have also recognised that military solutions can only go so far. Many challenges to international security problems can be effectively tackled only by a long-term approach that incorporates the full range of civilian and military means at our disposal. We need to devote more attention to managing conflict—preventing it from occurring in the first place, reducing its impact, and developing strategies to remove the underlying causes of tension.
It follows that no current debate on the United Kingdom's defence policy could be complete without addressing the complex issue of international terrorism and our part in the international community's response to
332
that threat. It is five months since the appalling events in New York and Washington. British forces have played an essential part in the coalition military action in and around Afghanistan. The United Kingdom has steadfastly supported the United States in the campaign against international terrorism, providing military assistance that I have described to the House on several occasions. That support continues. The Royal Air Force continues to provide reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling support to coalition actions against remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda elements. British troops are still on the ground in Afghanistan, participating in these operations, and the Royal Navy continues to participate in interdiction operations in the Arabian sea to prevent the escape of al-Qaeda members.
Mr. Mike Hancock: On over-commitment and the deployment of service personnel overseas, does the right hon. Gentleman share the view of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who is peddling the idea of using mercenaries as an alternative? Most hon. Members are horrified by that suggestion, and would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clarify the position of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Hoon: As I understand the position, the Foreign Office has published a discussion document, enabling that issue to be discussed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a vigorous contribution to that debate.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend mentioned the fact that we have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, but we are getting very little information about what is happening there. Professor Mac Herold from the university of New Hampshire has estimated the death toll of civilians in Afghanistan from October to 6 February as 3,600. What is the Government's estimate, and when are we going to have a debate solely on what is going on in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: It has proved extraordinarily difficult to make any accurate estimate of the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan; obviously, we regret any casualties. Certainly I do not recognise the figure that my hon. Friend has suggested as being anywhere near the reality, but it has proved difficult to make any precise estimate at this stage. I assure my hon. Friend that if we can do so, we shall report those estimates to the House in due course.
While the United States has shouldered much of the burden of the military campaign, my American colleagues have made no secret of how much they value our support and the invaluable experience, talent and skill of our armed forces. I once again pay tribute to the soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who have taken part, and are still taking part, in operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, I supported the war, but I remember that he told me in an answer—I am sure that it was not his intention to mislead me—that the prisoners of war would be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the Geneva conventions, but article 5 makes it clear that any dispute

333
about the status of prisoners must be determined by an independent tribunal. Is that my right hon. Friend's understanding, and if so, why are not those Geneva conventions being upheld by the people with whom we fought the war?
Mr. Hoon: I do not want to get into a technical and legal argument with my hon. Friend, who has looked at this subject in detail, but as soon as she uses the phrase "prisoners of war" she is already generalising about the position of a number of prisoners who are not in fact prisoners of war. For example, there is little doubt that al-Qaeda terrorists do not, under any definition, qualify to be prisoners of war; in those circumstances, the position that has been taken by the United States Administration is the one recognised and agreed to by the United Kingdom.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of what the Secretary of State has just said, it would have been absurd if Carlos the Jackal had been arrested and claimed protection under the Geneva convention. That would have been a manifestly ludicrous claim, but people could have argued, like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), that until the claim was resolved, he had to be afforded such protection. Intelligence must be got from these prisoners, and that is why the protection under the Geneva convention must not be inappropriately applied.
Mr. Hoon: That is a fanciful example, but on this occasion I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Ann Clwyd: Further to that point, will my right hon. Friend give way again?
Mr. Hoon: I may be courting trouble, but I give way again.
Ann Clwyd: I would respectfully say to my right hon. Friend that it is not a technical argument. The Geneva conventions were framed to cover issues of this kind, where there is a dispute about the status of the people taken prisoner. It is not up to my right hon. Friend, Donald Rumsfeld or anyone else to determine the prisoners' status; it is for an independent tribunal. They may or may not be prisoners of war, but it is for that independent tribunal, under the Geneva conventions, to determine.
Mr. Hoon: We are getting into another technical debate. I do not recognise my hon. Friend's interpretation of how the Geneva conventions operate in this case. It is for the determining authority to decide on the status of prisoners. In the circumstances, it is proper for the United States Administration to be that determining authority. The Geneva conventions were framed against the background of war between states. That cannot apply to alleged al-Qaeda terrorists. I am confident that the US Administration and the UK Government are taking the right approach.
Many of the campaign aims that we set out at the start of military action in Afghanistan have been met. The ability of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to pose a continuing terrorist threat has been severely limited. We have seen a change in the leadership of Afghanistan, which is no longer a state that supports or sustains international terrorism. One of our longer-term aims in
334
the campaign was to end Afghanistan's self-imposed isolation and reintegrate the country as a responsible member of the international community.
The Bonn agreement is being implemented successfully. A key part of that is the deployment to Kabul of the international security assistance force, for which the UK is currently the lead nation. I saw that at first hand last week when I visited British troops in Afghanistan and met members of the Interim Administration. Hamid Kaarzai and other members of the Interim Administration deserve real credit for all that they have achieved.
In addition to the enabling force of 250 that we sent to support the early stages of the deployment, there are now some 1,700 British troops in Kabul as part of ISAF. In total, ISAF numbers around 3,600 troops, with forces from 13 of the 17 other troop-contributing nations now in place. ISAF is on course to achieve full operating capability later this month.
Hon. Members will have seen the media coverage of the joint patrols conducted by the ISAF and the Afghan police. Those have been well received. I went on patrol with a considerable number of members of 2 Para last week, so I know from first-hand experience that the reception from the local people is excellent.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am not sure whether the Royal Air Force TriStar is used in Afghanistan, but I regret that the Government have not awarded the maintenance contract to Marshall's, which is likely to cause the loss of 80 to 100 jobs in my constituency. Marshall's works to high standards and provides high-quality services to British Airways, Lufthansa and KLM.
Mr. Hoon: TriStar is not being used in Afghanistan, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for her constituents and for Marshall's. I have visited that company several times and it is an admirable example of excellent British engineering. However, it has not been maintaining TriStar for about five years. Notwithstanding the quality of its bid, it was not successful in a competitive process with others that are engaged in maintaining TriStar.
It is clear that ISAF is making a difference on the streets of Kabul, and not simply by providing security. It has also been working with the Department for International Development to identify useful projects to help to restore Kabul as a functioning modern city. I saw, for example, efforts that British soldiers are making to bring a school that was badly damaged in the civil war back into use.
As lead nation of ISAF, the UK played a major role in establishing the force. We plan to maintain that role until late April when we expect to hand it over to one of our partners. We are working with Turkey to encourage it to turn its expression of interest in becoming the lead nation into a formal offer.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am interested in what the Secretary of State says about the reconstruction of Afghanistan and other improvements. What is being done about the quantities of unexploded ordnance, especially cluster bombs, that have been found in

335
Afghanistan? Can he make it clear whether British, American or any other forces used depleted uranium at army stage during the conflict?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem of unexploded ordnance in Afghanistan. That has been a significant problem for many years, and the ordnance dates back to the occupation by the Soviet Union, the civil war and the range of conflicts that have taken place in that country. Members of ISAF are certainly engaged, day by day, in clearing parts of the city. I saw some of that work myself and heard still more of it. It is an enormously difficult and potentially dangerous task, and they are going about it with considerable skill.
Mr. Hancock: Bearing it in mind that we are now told that there are more than 7,000 prisoners of one form or another in Afghanistan, has the Secretary of State been approached by his American allies with the suggestion that British troops be deployed in holding those prisoners securely? Have any negotiations taken place on the repatriation of the British prisoners currently held in Afghanistan to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, that has not happened. On his second point, as has been said already, what is important is that those held at Guantanamo bay are questioned on their likely involvement in the events of 11 September and on other offences that they may have committed against United States law or, indeed, against international law. Thereafter, there may be circumstances in which those prisoners are brought back to the United Kingdom, not least if there are allegations that they may have committed offences against United Kingdom law.
ISAF's task is to assist the Afghan Interim Administration in maintaining security in and around Kabul, to provide the conditions in which they can pave the way for the interim Loya Jirga in June and, ultimately, the full Loya Jirga 18 months later
Donald Anderson: Part of Mr. Hamid Karzai's appeal when he came here was that ISAF's remit be extended beyond Kabul. Clearly, it is in everyone's interest that the four other major cities in Afghanistan also have the same degree of law and order as Kabul. What has been the British Government's response and that of the international coalition generally to Mr. Karzai's appeal?
Mr. Hoon: I had the privilege of discussing that issue with Mr. Karzai, not only in the United Kingdom but when I went to Afghanistan last week. Obviously, the Interim Administration is concerned to provide security elsewhere beyond Kabul, but that has not been possible so far, not least because of the terms of the original UN Security Council resolution and, indeed, because of practical constraints on the number of forces available. It is obviously something that the international community will continue to consider, but real practical constraints face any country that would want to be involved.
ISAF has also begun to train 600 members of the Afghan armed forces to form a national guard. The United Kingdom is also committed to playing its part, with other
336
coalition partners, in helping the Afghans with the reform of their security sector. That is essential to create lasting stability, which, ultimately, of course, must be a matter for the Afghans themselves.
Much still needs to be done, by the international community and the Interim Administration, before Afghanistan is restored as a completely stable and peaceful country, but we are well on the way towards ensuring that Afghanistan will never again provide a haven for international terrorism.
I have already mentioned the outcome of the strategic defence review. That review and our further work on the changing strategic context put us in a strong position to respond to the appalling events of 11 September. The review placed particular emphasis on capabilities relevant to the new circumstances in which we find ourselves—reconnaissance, surveillance, rapid deployment, precision strikes and more effective command and control. That is why the United Kingdom has been able to play such a significant role in the military operations in Afghanistan. The acquisition of equipment such as the Apache helicopter, the joint strike fighter and the future carriers will enhance those capabilities still further.
The appalling attacks on 11 September highlighted the need for us to consider whether we should make further adjustments to our armed forces to take account of the threat from international terrorism and the growing likelihood of asymmetric action. So, as I announced to the House in October last year, I have set in hand work to re-examine our own defence posture and plans to ensure that we have the right defence concepts, forces and capabilities to defend us against the threat from international terrorism.
We have underlined from the outset the need to keep a sense of perspective in that work. Not everything has changed. Nor, just as importantly, does everything need to change. I emphasise again that we are engaged not in a new strategic defence review but in a new chapter to that review. However, it would be complacent not to adjust capability when that is needed, and not to address how we can prevent or deter attacks of the kind seen on 11 September. Since October, we have undertaken a great deal of work, involving other Departments and outside experts, to consider that issue.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State said that it would be complacent not to take account of the attacks on 11 September. The American national security review specifically identified that kind of asymmetric threat to American lives in its first conclusion and a Select Committee of the House unanimously pointed out that issue as a gap in the strategic defence review. Does not the Government's approach resemble that of allowing the people who predicted that the Titanic would not sink to determine how many lifeboats it should have?
Mr. Hoon: No, it does not. The strategic defence review included a reference to asymmetric warfare, and the issue has been considered by Government in the past. Certainly, the events of 11 September have required us to consider such threats again and in more detail. I wish any Government had been in a position to anticipate what happened on 11 September. The truth, however, was that

337
we were not in such a position. We must now ensure that we have the right kind of military capabilities to face the challenges posed by those events.
Our thinking so far is set out in a public discussion paper which the Ministry of Defence published this morning and which has already been made available to hon. Members. It considers a range of issues and seeks to answer a number of basic questions. How much has the strategic context changed since 11 September? How should we engage with the symptoms and causes of terrorism? What balance should we strike between home defence and countering the threat abroad? What range of effects do we want to be able to achieve abroad? How might we enhance the effectiveness of our military contribution at home and abroad? What role should international organisations—particularly the UN, NATO, and the EU, but also others—play in that? How can we build on our regional and bilateral relationships?
The discussion material sets out the key issues that we face, and some of the ways in which we consider that the context in which we operate may have changed. It does not seek to reach firm conclusions at this stage. We want to obtain views from Members, from the public, from outside experts and from allies and partners before we take final decisions.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State rightly says that this document does not offer solutions at this stage. Indeed, it poses questions that he put to the Select Committee last November. When will he come forward with concrete proposals that the House can consider? He promised the Select Committee that a detailed set of proposals resulting from the review would appear in the spring. Will he tell us when he expects to bring forward firm conclusions arising from the consultation process?
Mr. Hoon: The purpose of the discussion document is not only to indicate the nature of the questions but to set out some of our preliminary thinking. As the hon. Gentleman will find when he considers the document in more detail, there are already indications of the direction in which we propose to go. I hope that he will give the Government credit for at least allowing right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity of setting out their views. I know that he would have criticised us if we had proceeded too quickly. We are trying to strike the right balance between soliciting ideas and views and trying to move quickly. I hope that we shall move quickly towards reaching some conclusions.
I shall set out some of the first results of our opening thoughts on these difficult questions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week when he was in Sierra Leone, there is a close connection between our domestic interests and what happens on the international stage. Emerging threats in Africa, the middle east, the Gulf and central Asia can come to affect us directly, sometimes with little or no warning. Therefore, a closer link now exists between ensuring the adequate defence of the home base and our ability to undertake deployed operations.
The United States, for its part, has made it clear that it will not be deterred from operating abroad by terrorists or others who threaten the US homeland. Our position must be the same. The United Kingdom will want to continue to play a leading role in promoting international security
338
and stability. Our role, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is to be a pivotal partner, using our global influence, connections and friendships as a force for good in the world. We need to play to our strengths, including, where appropriate, participating in and leading initial short-duration peace support operations in higher-risk environments and participating in strike operations as part of a coalition effort.
We need to put more emphasis on being proactive and, where possible and justifiable, pre-empting problems rather than simply waiting for problems to come to us. In that, we should use the whole range of responses that the Government have at their disposal—not simply military means.
We need to examine the number, size and nature of the operations that we may be called on to undertake—perhaps simultaneously or in quick succession. That may involve both offensive find and strike actions, and prevention or stabilisation operations. We will need to judge whether we are likely to encounter other situations where key national interests mean that we need to engage further afield than the core regions of Europe, the Mediterranean and the Gulf, which were the focus of our thinking about our force structures during the strategic defence review.
Mr. Brazier: Although I strongly welcome what the Secretary of State has just said, does he not accept that the threat that has now been identified to the home base means that, in one important respect, we are departing from a central strand of the strategic defence review's overseas elements? It is much more likely that we will have to participate in operations without having any choice about it. The thrust of the SDR was that most of our expeditionary operations would be the result of choice, but we may find ourselves committed to operations on the very edge of our capabilities and we will have no choice about that if there is a threat to our home base.
Mr. Hoon: I certainly think that the key change that the events of 11 September have brought about is an end to the assumption that we face no direct challenge to our territory here in the United Kingdom. Successive Governments have made that assumption and it underpinned a number of the reviews that they carried out. However, that assumption no longer applies and, as I will say in due course, we need to think through the implications of that for the future organisation of our armed forces.
Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State will appreciate that many of us are disturbed by the statement that he has just made, which did not include any reference to causes of conflicts, to legal solutions to conflicts or to the role of the United Nations. He appears to be looking at a military solution to most problems. Will he assure the House that there are no plans to increase military activity against Iraq or, indeed, to engage in any military activity in Somalia or Sudan? Many people around the world now feel that Britain and the United States make their own decisions to take whatever military action they think is appropriate wherever they think it is appropriate.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not listening to my speech with his customary care and

339
attention. I specifically said that we needed to operate within the generally recognised rules of law and that there were a range of responses other than the purely military ones for dealing with the causes of conflict. My hon. Friend will find those points set out more clearly in the discussion document. I hope that, when he has the opportunity of reading my speech carefully, he will realise that I referred to both those points.
On Iraq, my hon. Friend knows that British forces are engaged in operations over the no-fly zones where they regularly come under fire and where they regularly respond. However, there are no plans that I am aware of for any substantial action against Iraq at the present time. The matter is obviously kept under review, not least because of the way in which our aircraft come under attack on a regular basis from the armed forces of Iraq.
I want to turn to some of the key areas that we are considering and in relation to which we are seeking views. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office is, of course, responsible for counter-terrorism and is in the lead for domestic security, particularly in relation to the police. There is an important constitutional principle involved and it is one that can quickly be forgotten in the wake of events such as the attacks of 11 September. Any support provided by the armed forces—especially the use of force—must be at the specific request of the civil authorities.
That said, the armed forces have always played an important part in the defence of the homeland. The Royal Navy ensures the integrity of our territorial waters and the Royal Air Force defends our airspace. Immediately following 11 September, elements of the armed forces, including air defence aircraft, were placed at increased readiness. They have been scrambled to monitor suspect aircraft on more than one occasion since. Command and control arrangements have been enhanced to allow more rapid decisions about how to respond to potential threats. We are considering with the relevant civil Departments and international bodies whether permanent changes in the posture and capabilities of such forces are required.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State explain why in the present circumstances Her Majesty's Government have decided to stand down 5 Air Defence Squadron at RAF Coningsby?
Mr. Hoon: From his long interest in the RAF the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the shortfall in the number of pilots, which is a direct consequence of decisions taken many years ago by a Government whom he from time to time supported. In the circumstances, it has been necessary for us significantly to increase the number of pilots in training, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the effect of that will take some time to filter through the system. However, I assure him that there will be no reduction in the number of an aircraft patrolling, and therefore no less protection for the United Kingdom.
Patrick Mercer: A few short years ago, I witnessed a superfluity of officers under training in the RAF—so many were there that they were sent on infantry courses to pass their time. Now, at RAF Cranwell, RAF
340
officer cadets are being used to guard the gate in the absence of policemen. Is that the right way to set about training our fighter pilots and redressing those grievances?
Mr. Hoon: I was referring specifically to pilots. There has been a long-term problem with the number of pilots available for our aircraft, which was caused specifically by the fact that it takes several years to train a pilot to fly a fast jet, and not enough people were entering training to produce the number that we ideally require today. That is a problem of long standing, and not one that the hon. Gentleman can blame on the current Government.
Beyond the specific roles that I have outlined, there are well-founded and tested procedures whereby the armed forces assist the civil authorities. We saw what an important role they had to play when members of the Royal Marines boarded a suspected rogue ship in the English channel just before Christmas. But such support is about more than responding to the threat of terror. In the past 18 months, the armed forces have responded to requests from the civil authorities for assistance with fuel strikes, major floods, and, of course, the foot and mouth crisis.
We have good reason to be grateful to the armed forces. They have unique capabilities on which the civil authorities can call—an obvious example is dealing with explosive devices. The Ministry of Defence is therefore working with other Departments to review the arrangements and degree of co-ordination between the civil authorities and the armed forces to maximise the armed forces' ability to respond to any future requests. That work is to build on the forces' particular strengths in planning and co-ordinating operations, command and control, their nationwide footprint of people, infrastructure and communications, and their specialist capabilities.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that post-11 September it is important to reassure the public? In the United States, President Bush's appointment of Governor Ridge clearly demonstrates that there is someone in charge of homeland defence with wide-ranging powers to co-ordinate state-wide activities. I am comparing that with what the Select Committee on Defence has heard so far, which suggests that our response is to hold committee meetings of civil servants. What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure the public and members of the Defence Committee that our response does not reflect the typical stiff-upper-lip approach of the civil service, and to curb the apparent lack of co-ordination and excessive departmentalism?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right that reassurance is important, and—I am sure that this is what he was driving at—that there should be effective action if necessary. It is perhaps a little unfair to talk about committees meeting: those committees reflect a wide range of effort throughout Government to ensure that we are in a position to act should we face a threat similar to the one faced by the United States on 11 September.
One matter that we are considering in detail is the potential further contribution that the reserves can make—perhaps by building on their wide geographical spread across the country and their associated local knowledge. Our reserve forces are integrated with the Regular armed forces. When deployed, they carry out many of the same

341
tasks as our Regular forces. Again and again, they have proved their worth and professionalism on operations, for example, in the Balkans, where reservists have consistently represented around 10 per cent. of our commitment.
With the Home Office and other Departments, we are looking at whether any new tasks required by the new scenarios can be encompassed within the existing role and capability of the reserves. We will also consider the volunteer ethos of the reserves, as well as their availability and their training. Any changes that we decide are needed will involve supporting the civil agencies that have primary responsibility for these matters. Should we decide that changes to the role of the reserves may be necessary, we will naturally consult existing members of the reserve forces and their civilian employers first. We are scheduling this for the coming weeks and will then make public more detailed proposals.
Turning to what we can do overseas, it is a tenet of British military doctrine that it is usually better to seek to engage an enemy at longer range—before they are able to mount an attack against our interests. Our preference will therefore be to continue to place our emphasis on deployed operations, so we must continue to be ready and willing to deploy significant forces overseas to act against terrorists and those who harbour them. Our determination to do that, where necessary, should be absolutely clear from the actions that we have taken to date.
It is in the very nature of terrorist groups and those posing asymmetric threats that they will be hard to find and may be vulnerable to attack for only fleeting moments. So in many circumstances we will need to be able to strike very rapidly, and we need adequate reach. The strategic defence review set in hand a range of measures to give our armed forces the right posture and capabilities, which have stood us in good stead since 11 September.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me again. He rightly referred to the importance of consulting the reserve forces themselves. Does he accept that, for many in the reserve forces, an absolutely key decision is in his gift at the moment? That is whether to continue as a part-time appointment the critical military adviser's post, director of reserve forces of cadets. The initial decision was made five years ago and was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It means that the post is filled by someone who has a civilian job which, to use the words of one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, means that he has empathy with reservists. That decision will come up very shortly. May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to keep a part-timer in that post?
Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly take his view into account when the decision is made.
Mrs. Mahon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his patience in giving way to me again. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly was told recently by Interpol that a connection had been established between al-Qaeda, the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Bosnian Muslims. What
342
investigations are the Government undertaking into the leadership of the KLA and the Bosnian Muslims both in Bosnia and in Kosovo?
Mr. Hoon: rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, I say to the House that there is a very long list of hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye, and if there are multiple interventions from certain hon. Members, it may affect their place on the list.
Mr. Hoon: I shall take your warning into account, Mr. Deputy Speaker, next time someone invites me to give way.
In answer to my hon. Friend's question, certainly a number of links between different organisations have been identified, each of which has been thoroughly investigated, including the one that she mentioned.
We need now to look at whether the new circumstances make new demands on us. We want to assure ourselves that we have the right shape and balance of rapidly deployable forces and that we are able to integrate them with intelligence assets and the command and control that is needed to mount effective precision operations. So we are looking closely, for example, at whether we need more of our forces at high readiness, and we are considering the enablers required, such as command and control, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance and transport.
There are broadly five ways in which we can seek to counter threats abroad. We can try to prevent the conditions that allow international terrorist organisations to operate, and help less capable states to build better capabilities to counter terrorism themselves. That is similar to what the United States is doing in the Philippines at the moment. We can seek to prevent problems recurring by undertaking peace support operations, usually in coalition with others, to prevent instability or assist in stabilisation.
We can deter would-be attackers by ensuring that our range of military options and our readiness to use them are clear. We must also be able to coerce those who harbour or support international terrorism if other means have not dissuaded them. If that fails, we can try to disrupt activities that support international terrorist groups, for example by closing off sources of materiel, finance and freedom of movement. We might ultimately need to destroy active terrorist cells with military action, such as find and strike raids on key terrorist facilities. Of course, whatever action we take in response to a particular threat will depend on the nature of that threat. In some cases, defence diplomacy or peace support may be enough. In others, a robust military response will be required. We want to be able to contribute to a range of responses. We need to consider where the emphasis should lie. In all that, we will remain very conscious of the need not to place unsustainable demands on members of the armed forces and their families.
We are also examining the roles played by international organisations of which we are a member, principally the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union, but also others. They all have unique responsibilities and offer different capabilities. They have all already acted decisively against international terrorism. For example, NATO made its first ever invocation of article 5. But we need to make sure that the right organisations take the

343
right initiatives without duplicating what others are doing. We must be able to convince potential terrorists that the international community as a whole, rather than ad hoc coalition of states is willing and able to act quickly and decisively.
We also need to build and sustain our military relationships with other nations. Defense diplomacy was one of the major themes of the strategic defence review. The education and training of foreign armed forces is an area in which the United Kingdom has developed proven skills. In Sierra Leone, for example, our short-term training teams have trained a total of 9,000 soldiers. We are already building on our activities and relationships in that area, but we may need to do more.
During the strategic defence review, the Ministry of Defence actively sought the views of those outside Government. We recognised that Members of Parliament and peers, local authorities, academics, industry, interest groups, non-governmental organisations, the media and members of the general public may well have ideas and opinions. Within the constraint of a tight timetable, we are seeking to emulate that approach in our work on the new chapter of the strategic defence review. So, today, I repeat our invitation for views and ideas from as wide an audience as possible. We are distributing discussion material to every library in the country; it has also gone to every local authority and is available on the internet. The armed forces are a vital national asset and I want to hear views on what their role and contribution should be in this new environment. We are working to a tight timetable, and have provided just over a month for comments, to ensure that contributors have the chance to influence our thinking. I plan to publish some conclusions from the work in the spring or early summer.
Those matters are of direct interest to us all. There have been those, certainly since the end of the cold war, who have seen the armed forces as an optional extra, and the contribution that they have made abroad as a favour that we have been able to offer to the international community. And some have perhaps taken too comfortable a view of the so-called peace dividend and the fact that an external threat to the United Kingdom seemed so unlikely. We cannot afford to think like that any longer. The military capability on which we spend the defence budget is not an optional extra; it is absolutely essential to our part in maintaining international security. We must not take that security and stability for granted.
We need to see defence as a public service—something as crucial to our freedom and our quality of life as health and education. The events of 11 September have cast a long shadow over our world. Our strategic environment has changed, not beyond recognition, but certainly significantly. That change must be built into our defence planning and policy. With the work that we have in hand, we will ensure that our armed forces will reflect the new challenges that we face so that we are better placed to defend the United Kingdom, our people and our interests, and to strengthen peace and security world wide.
2.13 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests; I remain a serving member of the

344
Territorial Army. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who is in Washington. I understand that he has written to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Secretary of State.
It is a great privilege to be called to speak immediately after the Secretary of State. As he pointed out, our armed forces are on operations and in action. During the short time that I have served in the House of Commons, they have continued to distinguish themselves on land, in the air, and at sea. Will the Secretary of State convey my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and his staff for their work in enabling me to visit many units, which has been a great privilege?
Last Friday, I visited the Infantry Battle School at Brecon, and observed the platoon sergeants' course. When I arrived, they had already been in the field for five days in filthy weather, and they had another five days to go. They were thoroughly wet and covered in mud and so were all their possessions. They had not slept in 72 hours as they had been driven out of a position the night before and had had to tab through the night with all their kit. When I met them, they were planning an assault to retake that position at 4 am the next morning. It was exactly the sort of time when one would expect them to have a serious sense of humour failure, but not a bit of it. When I spoke to them they said, "No, sir. This is what training for war is all about, sir." No finer body of men could be found in any armed service throughout the world. As President Chirac said:
"We must make our armed forces more like the British. They are the best in the world and must be the model for ours."
That must be the starting point of our debate. How do we deploy and preserve this enormously precious asset?
I have read the document provided by the Secretary of State, the excellent second report of the Select Committee on Defence in respect of the role of the reserves and what the Secretary of State said in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report before us today. I have had an amount of lobbying from members of the Territorial Army concerned about guard duties at key points. It does not sound a particularly attractive role, but if the intelligence estimate is that key facilities have to be guarded, or protected in order to provide reassurance to the public, somebody has to guard them and it is a proper role for the Territorial Army.
Mr. Eric Joyce: Does not the fact that the hon. Gentleman is both a serving member of the TA, so presumably he has lobbied in that capacity, and here debating Government policy on the TA give rise to some inconsistency with his comments some years ago of which I have some recollection?
Mr. Swayne: No. I suffer no discomfort at all. The TA is familiar with its role in homeland defence. Although the larger part of the TA was tasked to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine during the Soviet threat, a distinct and significant element of the TA was tasked with home defence to counter the threat of Soviet special forces attacking key points and of assassinations and to keep main supply routes open. So the TA is already familiar with this role and I am absolutely sure that it will have no difficulty carrying it out. My only concern is that the TA also has other roles to which I shall return in a moment.

345
Let me say something about the need for flexible forces to which the Secretary of State and the Select Committee drew attention. The Select Committee report states:
"We will need more forces which can be available at short notice; more forces in other words with the training and skills of the Royal Marine Commandos, the Parachute Regiment and the Special Forces."
That is absolutely true, but we should be aware that we do have additional forces with those capabilities now. It is not a common misconception in this House, but the public believe that the 3rd Commando Brigade and the 16th Air Assault Brigade are all about Royal Marine commandos and parachutists. They are not. There is a significant infantry regiment of the line input into those brigades. We fall into a grave mistake if we have the mindset that there are specialist forces and ordinary forces. Our ordinary forces are themselves specialist forces and can do the job. We must avoid the problem that will arise with respect to morale if we categaorise the infantry regiments of the line as available only for what might be called ordinary duties instead of the new, highly deployable, flexible duties which are so necessary. The infantry has been working on that ability to deploy flexibly and quickly for some time. When I visited infantry headquarters in Warminster some weeks ago, I picked up its visitors' handbook. Its first page sets out "the infantry vision". I am not sure whether we should encourage vision among infantrymen. I suspect that the phrase has more to do with the management-speak of Arthur Andersen than with soldiering. Nevertheless, the vision is:
"That by 2020, the infantry must be equipped, structured, manned, trained and sustained to fulfil its mission in accordance with its manoeuvrist doctrine."
I put a little research into what that doctrine might be. If I may be technical for a moment, much of it turns on what is now called the rule of four. Under the doctrine, to deploy with maximum flexibility, maximum fire support under command and effective use of reserves, a battalion should have four companies, a company should have four platoons and a platoon should have four sections. That differs from the order of battle as it has been hitherto, which has only three of each of those elements.
That begs the enormous question of whether manpower will be forthcoming to sustain that important new order of battle. Those additional resources can come from one of two places. First, we could start to scrap cap badges and amalgamate regiments. However, I am certain that there is no appetite on either side of the House for that approach, because it kills off the goose that lays the golden egg—the very core of our regimental system. Secondly—this is what the Army believes—the additional resources can come, in time of war, from the Territorial Army. After all, that is not dissimilar from the TA's traditional role of filling out the British Army of the Rhine's order of battle.
However, if the TA is earmarked for homeland defence it will be difficult to sustain that new order of battle for the infantry in addition to the existing requirement on the TA to fill the gaps in the regular Army by providing what I described in last week's Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall as the 3,000 or so "serial mobilisers" who constantly go from one mobilisation to another to sustain the regular Army. The whole concept of homeland defence—or home defence, as we used to call it—raises serious questions about the proper establishment of the reserves.
346
We were wholly opposed to the cuts in the TA. That is not a party political point, because several Labour Members, not least some of those who serve on the Select Committee, have a distinguished record in that battle. The TA suffered significant damage as a consequence of the strategic defence review. If the Government are to make use of the asset of the TA in the way that the document describes, that damage will require substantial repair. It is evident in the problem of undermanning, in the dearth of junior officers and in the fact that short courses are 40 per cent. undersubscribed. Potential officers are turning up at the Royal Military college, Sandhurst untrained by their battalions, with the result that the course has to be changed from a testing course into a teaching course. One course per year has to be cancelled owing to the shortage.
The debate on the use of the reserves must go beyond the TA. For example, we could consider using the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to provide strike flying formations. That would be comparable with the way in which the National Guard operates in the United States.
Flexibility is vital, but I want to sound a note of caution. The axes—I use the plural advisedly—of evil in the world, be they rogue states, failed states, or whatever, have plenty of conventional armaments. There are 255,000 tanks out there, only 386 of which are ours. The Soviets alone exported some 80,000 T72 tanks. Twenty-nine countries have more than 2,000 tanks; we would be 45th in any league. There must be a balance between firepower, protection and mobility. Given the current state of technology, that balance comes out at about 70 tonnes.
Mr. Kevan Jones: What use would a tank be against a terrorist attack?
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman will recall that it is not long since this country was at war with Iraq, which has many tanks. We might find ourselves in conflict with failed states not entirely dissimilar to Afghanistan as part of the war against terrorism. Infantry set against their armour without our own armoured support would take enormous casualties. One day, we will develop technology that can replace the tank, but not yet. I suspect that when we have it, it will be fiendishly expensive.
Hugh Robertson: Few individual pieces of military equipment are of any use in a terrorist attack—that is why such attacks are so dangerous. Individual pieces of military equipment are used when we carry out our response.
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend's point is well made. It is not only a question of high-intensity war fighting—we have found armour to be extremely useful in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. I am sure that Ministers will confirm that.
I want to move on to an area of defence policy on which I am tempted to congratulate the Government almost unreservedly. [Interruption.] Wait for it. The position that they appear to be taking up as regards ballistic missile defence suggests that they have taken a quantum leap. Only two years ago, speaking on "Newsnight", the Minister for Europe said:
"I don't like the idea of a star wars programme."

347
We can recall the debate in Westminster Hall in which many Labour Members assured Us that the ballistic missile defence programme was the greatest threat to global security. Now, the Foreign Secretary declares himself to be "open to new thinking" about it. I read with unalloyed pleasure the speech that he gave on 6 February at King's college. The soundness of his argument was matched only by its familiarity.
Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) wrote a pamphlet about ballistic missile defence in which he stated that
"it needs to be recognised that the shortcomings"—
of arms control agreements—
"are inherent".
In his speech, the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that
"it would be foolish to overlook the shortcomings"
of arms control agreements. My right hon. Friend noted in his pamphlet that the "Cold War mindset" of the anti-ballistic missile treaty required its abandonment. That is almost uncannily similar to the phrase that the Foreign Secretary has used. I do not criticise the Foreign Secretary for that; his conversion is a matter of great satisfaction to Opposition Members. Our concern is whether the Government will confirm their position on this policy issue, to show that this is not just evidence of another lurch in policy.
Another item on which I am not so sanguine about the Government's stance—although I share the Secretary of State's preoccupation with it—is the European security and defence policy. The Secretary of State made it clear in November 2000 that that was all about capability. In December 2000, the Nice conclusions stated that
"the main challenge for member states is to develop military capabilities."
However, figures issued by the House of Commons Library on 13 February 2002 show that EU average defence expenditure has fallen by 5.5 per cent. in each year from 1997 to 2001. In that context, we must bear in mind that the St. Malo agreement was signed in 1998. It is no wonder that Lord Robertson sounds increasingly exasperated in his speeches. On 21 January, in Sweden, he said that Europe was becoming
"a military pigmy."
I urge the Secretary of State to pay considerable attention to the report produced by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union entitled "The European Policy on Security and Defence." It states that it is not clear what could be done with a European force, and warns against
"the temptation, if the political need for an operation arises, to conduct an EU-led mission for symbolic purposes, before the EU is ready to do so."
My concern is that that might end up happening in Macedonia this summer, and I hope that the Secretary of State is alive to that concern and will be able to address it in the fullness of time.
The European security and defence policy adds nothing to military capability. It is, therefore, all the more astonishing that the EU should continue to develop
348
political and military structures as though that capability existed and, indeed, as though 11 September had never happened.
Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen if Europe did not adopt the policy that it is currently embracing, and if the Americans decided not to take part in any action if a problem arose here? What would be the Conservative response to that? Would Great Britain alone take on the responsibility of sorting out a European conflict?
Mr. Swayne: It strikes me that there is perfectly adequate provision in NATO to make available the resources on an ad hoc basis. The coalition of the willing can happen as easily in NATO—in fact, I suspect, rather more easily—as within the European Union.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) singing from a different song-sheet from his friends on the Labour Front Bench? They constantly tell us that the purpose of the European force is crisis management and not war-fighting or conflict. Now, however, the real danger is of a war breaking out in Europe and people from European states blundering into it without the Americans being involved. That is what we have been warning about all along.
Mr. Swayne: I acknowledge the force of my hon. Friend's point. My concern is that, if we go back and look at the declarations—the summitry—behind this issue, much of the rationale for the security and defence policy is the need to project the European Union on the world stage. I would have no practical problem with that, if the desire to do it would generate the capability, but it has not done so.
Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swayne: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I do not want to fall into the trap that was laid for us by the Deputy Speaker.
That brings us to the subject of the war against al-Qaeda, and the whole subject of asymmetric terrorism. What is our policy in terms of pursuing al-Qaeda beyond the Afghan front? Notwithstanding the highly useful specialised forces still being deployed, we have been content to contribute to the international security assistance force. How far into the future are we prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder, as the Prime Minister described it, with our principal ally, the United States? If we are to continue to do that, should we not take on more of the burden of pursuing the rump of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, as the Canadians are doing? Or are we content to take the largely peacekeeping role in the ISAF?
I ask those questions because, earlier this week, HMS Ocean sailed with two companies of 45 Commando for the Indian ocean. We are told that they could be involved in combat operations in support of American forces, perhaps pursuing al-Qaeda in Somalia. Can the Minister throw some light on that? We have to know exactly what our policy is on this issue, and what it will be.
I shall conclude by referring to the Secretary of State's description in an interview last weekend of our armed forces being stretched but not overstretched.

349
On 17 December 2001, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, described the situation as being "dangerously over-committed" and the current chief, in his Royal United Services Institute lecture last year, used the rather chilling phrase, "something will have to give."
My starting point in analysing the problem, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is that we have the best armed forces in the world and of course we want to use them. That is what they are for. There is no point in spending more than £21 billion a year on our armed forces if we are not going to deploy them whenever we need to do so. Of course, we hope that their mere existence will be a significant deterrent, but failing that, their purpose is to deliver lethal force wherever it is required in pursuit of our foreign policy, in conjunction with our allies.
The armed forces want to be deployed. I cannot believe that many service men join up without the hope that they will see action. No one wants to spend their career back at the depot. The fact that we deploy our armed forces so often creates a virtuous circle. More than ever before, I suspect, in the British Army, any gathering of soldiers, officers or NCOs—be it an orders group or a conference—will benefit from the fact that a majority of those present will now have operational experience and a significant minority will have combat experience. So, having a busy Army is a good thing for defence policy, but there has to be a balance. There are suggestions, and there is evidence, that we have now become too busy.
Mr. Hancock: I was disappointed to hear that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the end of his speech, because I was hoping that he would say something that would keep the Secretary of State awake long enough to listen to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I should be grateful if you would confirm, as you have not mentioned any policies apart from the return to the tank and the better use of the Territorial Army, which you are happy with everything else to do with defence policy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be addressing me when he uses the second person, but I do not think that that was his intention.
Mr. Swayne: That intervention does not do the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) justice. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State was generous in giving way, but many Members want to speak today, and the brevity of my remarks—although it may disappoint the hon. Gentleman—was a necessity, and a courtesy to the rest of the House.
Over-busyness, as I described it, was perhaps strongly evidenced in answers to written questions tabled by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), which show a worryingly high differential between military and civilian divorce rates. It was useful to see those statistics. At a reception hosted by the Royal British Legion yesterday, I was told about a worrying statistic. On the return to Bovington of an armoured regiment of about 210 men, the Royal British Legion had to deal with some 76 divorces. That worrying statistic forms part of the evidence of over-busyness.
Further such evidence is available in the form of the stretched budget. This year, some budget-holder—units—have not allowed fully for the effects of Pay 2000.
350
The same was true last year, but that was an allowable overspend then. Budget-holders do not know whether such overspend is allowable this year, so what are they to do? Will the whole process simply grind to a halt?
Budgetary worries are also expressed in the detail of the 31st report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. On reading beyond the headlines, one discovers some very worrying figures. The body expresses "dismay" at the
"appalling…standard of much Service accommodation."
I know that the Secretary of State is alive to the problem and I am glad that he has acknowledged it, but on visiting fusiliers in Dungannon, I saw some quite shocking accommodation. I realise that they are there for a short tour of only six months, but those young men know what is available in civvy street. As the Armed Forces Pay Review Body says,
"poor…standards give rise to a strong sense of not being valued by their Service."
Evidence of stretching and over-busyness is clearly available in manning statistics that have appeared regularly throughout this Parliament. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body describes the position as
"fragile and unlikely to improve in the…future."
If my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will want to dwell on that problem, which he believes can certainly be remedied. None the less, it is a measure of the difficulties that an over-busy Army faces.
Perhaps the most worrying evidence is the effect on training. Infantry battle school course statistics for last year show that mortar courses were under-subscribed by 40 per cent. Sniper courses and milan anti-tank courses were under-subscribed by 46 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively. The reason is obvious. A busy battalion that has to deploy to Northern Ireland does not need milan anti-tank support, so there is no need to send its busy soldiers on such a course. The reality is that a time will come when we will need those skills for high-intensity warfare, but they will have faded. There is a vicious circle, in that courses have be lengthened to take account of the fact that skills are not of the required standard when they begin. That is a very worrying element of the evidence that the Army is rather too busy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said on Monday, the Secretary of State must persuade the Foreign Secretary to reduce the commitments—I think that unlikely—or persuade the Chancellor to fund them.
Syd Rapson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swayne: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue as I am drawing my remarks to a close. As the Defence Committee's second report points out, if there is to be another chapter in the strategic defence review, the Chancellor must be prepared to pay for it. The report's conclusion is very important to us and to defence policy. It says:
"We must not lose our sense of the urgency and importance of this task in the months ahead. We must not hesitate to take the necessary steps to protect the UK and our interests."
That must be the essence of the debate on defence policy. It is so easy, as 11 September recedes in time, to forget the urgency and importance of the task. However, we can

351
be sure that we face an enemy that has neither natural sense nor natural conscience. There is no natural sense in the absurdity of a belief that Allah the merciful would lavish the attendance of 72 maidens on someone for having done no more than slaughter innocents. There is no natural conscience in the fact that the attackers, as the Prime Minister pointed out, would have multiplied the innocents slaughtered by 70 times seven, had they had the ability to do so.
We received "a wake-up call", as Mr. Kissinger described it. We can either be alive to that call or hit the snooze button and slumber on.
2.45 pm
Mr. Bruce George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I thank him for his brevity; he took 35 minutes, and with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be equally brief. I also thank him for his compliments on our report on terrorism. I shall reciprocate by quoting an earlier Defence Committee report that was produced just after the strategic defence review. The hon. Gentleman's speech was not vitriolic and he did not seek to score too many political points. When he did seek to do so, they were administered gently.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the previous 20 or 30 Defence Committee reports. I have been in the novel position in the past few years of supporting my party's policy on defence, and I still feel a sense of exhilaration at the realisation that our views match closely. However, the problems of overstretch, which are severe, did not begin in 1997. I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to a 1996 report from the Committee, which then had a large Conservative majority. The report stated:
"We do not accept the proposal to drive defence expenditure below 2.8 per cent. of GDP…We cannot recommend the 1996 Statement on the Defence Estimates to the House unless Ministers make clear in the debate that this year's Statement will not again be undermined by further defence cuts in the 1996 Budget or by any other means."
The defence budget was grossly inadequate then, as was pointed out very fairly by the large Conservative majority, led by the late, lamented Michael Colvin.
Just before the dissolution of the Parliament that preceded the 1997 general election, the Committee produced a further report on the implications of the last Budget from the then Conservative Government. It concluded that, despite some adjustment, the plans represented a standstill for the defence budget. The report stated:
"We insist that the defence spending plans set out in the 1996 budget must at least be maintained in real terms in future years. Any further reduction would jeopardise the defence of the realm."
Before we receive too many lectures on the inadequacies of the current Government, I respectfully suggest that many of the problems that they face—some have been remedied and some have not—can be seen in the historical context of failure to undertake a proper defence review and a continuing downward spiral in defence expenditure. It is necessary to seek to remedy those deficiencies over a period of years. I do not feel guilty about what the Government have done on defence. In fact, I could deliver a strong eulogy on that score, but the
352
Defence Committee is critical because it is not our job to deliver eulogies to any Government; certainly the last Committee did not deliver eulogies to the Government of the day, and the tradition is being continued.
Although the document in question is not "Gone with the Wind" in terms of length, being a rather brief introduction to a complex problem, I welcome it. I also welcome today's debate and the review of the strategic defence review. Of course, it is a review of only a small part of the SDR and will take the form of a new chapter. There will be no significant evaluation of the rest of the SDR.
Syd Rapson: I intervene with trepidation, but we must be fair. The implication from the Conservative Front Bench was that more must be spent on defence; all that was said about lack of facilities implied that more expenditure was necessary. What we did not hear—perhaps my right hon. Friend can pursue this point—was how much the Conservatives expected to have to spend on defence. It would be useful to know that.
Mr. George: I do not want to project my thinking too far into the future by predicting what Tory Government might do about defence and defence expenditure. None the less, I do not wish to keep the Minister in suspense with regard to my conclusions. I welcome the small increase in defence spending that we saw two years ago. In fact, the announcement was made on board a frigate near Sierra Leone by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I accompanied him on a visit to that troubled country. However, that increase should be just the beginning. One of the conclusions of the Defence Committee's report on the SDR was that it would be almost impossible—quite a charitable assessment—for all the Government's intentions to be achieved on the basis of the projected budget.
On 10 September, I would have argued—indeed, I did so—that the budget was overstretched. The events of 11 September will impose further demands on additional activities to be undertaken not only by the armed forces, but by intelligence, the police, local authorities, ambulance services and a range of other statutory authorities. The idea that the existing budget or an incrementally increased one could somehow sustain those additional functions is a fallacy. I hope that that idea will not be espoused and that Ministers will resist it. Indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already banging on the Treasury door yet again and saying that a substantial increase is needed.
If the Prime Minister wants British forces to play as significant a role in future as they do now, there is no way in which our armed forces can respond without a considerable increase in spending. If that is not forthcoming, we must adjust to the fact that we will slip down further and perform as inadequately as some of our European partners. The opportunity exists for the good work to be continued. The need is there, and the threat is more than there. Our armed forces desire, expect and should receive more money: that is certainly clear to me.
Mr. David Laws: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, it is likely that the comprehensive spending review bid will have to go to the

353
Treasury some time next week. What would be his advice to the Secretary of State about the scale of the increase in the defence budget that is now necessary?
Mr. George: I cannot give a figure, but I trust that it would be a minimum of 0.5 per cent., which would bring the level up to 3 per cent. I will not even begin to discuss the difference between our defence expenditure and that of the United States, which of course we cannot match. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about Britain being in a different division, he was not subliminally indicating what might happen to his local football club, Derby County, which is very likely to end up in a different division. I hope that my local team will not do so. Anyway, I think that the figure will be around 3 per cent. It should not be beyond the Treasury's capability to grant that amount—and, as I said, we are talking not only about the Ministry of Defence, but about intelligence services, police forces and local authorities, which are largely responsible for emergency planning.
Mention was made of our report "Threat from Terrorism". What happened on 11 September was clearly very different from the terrorist acts of the past. It was appalling in terms of its scale and the evident determination to inflict mass casualties among innocent civilians—an appalling example, but regrettably neither the first nor, I suspect, the last. There is a danger that a new benchmark of horror has been established. We must provide not only a deterrent, but also the capability to respond. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) suggested, we should make a bit more effort to deal with the causes of terrorism, but we should not think that that will necessarily eliminate the problem.
We have, in fact, a broad agenda. The Select Committee—I am pleased to note that many of its members are present—has a strenuous programme. We were in Washington recently, a punishing experience but a valuable one, as my colleagues will testify. On 18 December we produced our report on the threat from terrorism, and we are undertaking a major series of inquiries into defence and security in the United Kingdom, the new chapter in the SDR, missile defence, the future of NATO, European security and many other issues. Our numerous inquiries deal with much of what is in the document that we are discussing now.
The Secretary of State told us that the new chapter demonstrates
"how seriously we take the views of this Committee, even though it may take longer than perhaps you would like to get around to dealing with the points you raise."
I hope that the new chapter will take the Committee's points on board; after all, its judgments stood the test of time rather better than those that the MOD made in its original SDR. Before a new chapter can be considered, however, it is necessary to look at the old chapters. The Government's SDR and also the Defence Committee's review must be revisited. The Committee criticised the Government's review on the ground that it did not take asymmetric threats seriously enough. We said:
"We are not convinced that the SDR process has initiated this interdepartmental discussion on how to respond to asymmetric threats on a consistent basis."
354
We also said—rather prophetically, given that this was 1998—
"A terrorist attack could, conceivably, give rise to an Article 5 commitment for NATO… Any approach to the UK's security which tries to do justice to the challenges posed by the more asymmetric nature of modern conflicts must consider the UK's external resources as a whole and judge how the military instrument can maximise its comparative advantages and achieve the greatest effect when used in combination with other instruments of policy.".
We said, very seriously, that in the SDR the Government were considering expeditionary warfare and were not paying sufficient attention to a threat of which they should have been aware—the threat to the United Kingdom's home base.
Our Committee said:
"The SDR may … be too led by foreign policy and the commitment to the UK being a force for good in the world",
which is important. We continued:
"We welcome the Strategic Defence Initiative, but we are still awaiting the strategic security review."
We pleaded for such a review. Perhaps 11 September has precipitated what we called for four years ago. We said:
"We cannot afford to allow the SDR to be a one-off experiment in inter-departmental co-operation. The process of developing a government-wide security policy must go on."
The Government produced a consultative document on contingency planning before 11 September. I could find not one reference in it to the Ministry of Defence, which shows that its focus was too narrow. We emphasised the many threats that will be faced. The idea expressed by the Government that there is no serious threat to the UK home base proved, at best, premature. We concluded that missile defence was not a subject of consideration in the SDR. It is certainly being considered now.
I suppose our most critical comments related to the cuts in the Territorial Army infantry, engineers and yeomanry, which we said were "shortsighted". Cuts have been made to the TA over many years; they did not begin in 1997. We said:
"The TA are still a valuable resource as long term insurance against the unexpected, and re-roling should be considered before cuts…In an asymmetric contest it is quite possible that, in addition to other 'asymmetric weapons', the UK homeland could be targeted by terrorist action designed to disrupt civil society directly, using high technology instruments such as chemical and biological agents, electronic attacks on computers and command and control systems, and attacks on major public utilities. The SDR does not address the capacity to deal with such a threat, especially at a time when our regular forces are already fully committed."
The point I make not too brutally—I am pulling the leg of a Minister, whom I admire greatly—is that before the Government start spending too much time on a new chapter, perhaps they could do us the courtesy of looking more seriously at our report on the SDR four years ago, which examined many of the items that are now under discussion.
I am deeply dissatisfied with the way in which the reserves have declined in importance. We said in our report that we welcomed the openness to reassessing the role of the reserves. Their role is now being reassessed.
I hope that the reserves and the TA will not be used just to trickle-feed the regular forces. I have always hoped that the time would come when an infantry battalion such as the 3rd Battalion of the former Staffordshire Regiment was used collectively, rather than single individuals going off to support the regular forces. That is very important.

355
Will they b e used any differently as a result of 11 September? Of course they will. If they are used in a crisis to defend a nuclear power establishment or Heathrow airport, they will not just be there for reassurance; they will perform a function of deterrence.
There is a role for the TA in guarding the many key military and economic sites in this country, but I would not want a person, man or woman, to join the TA thinking that its members were becoming armed security guards. If that is the Government's intention, other people would be prepared to do that for the money available, which would certainly be more than what the TA would get. The TA could perform that role, but it must be combined with other important roles.
I hope that people will join the TA in greater numbers than they have so far, but not to provide a supermilitary home service whose terms of responsibility are confined to a travel-to-work area. As I said some years ago, slightly changing the famous military song in the reign of Queen Anne, "Queen Anne commands and we obey, over the hills and as far away as Wolverhampton." We do not think that the purpose of joining the TA should be to extend one's vision from Walsall to Wolverhampton, or the other way round. There are many tasks that the TA could perform. I hope that that is given serious consideration.
The MOD mocked us when we compared our reserves to the United States National Guard and said that perhaps we should move a little closer to the National Guard model. We were pooh-poohed and dismissed.
One of the many things that worries me is how to ensure that if there is a major incident, the right people with the right skills are first on the scene. I am not referring to flooding, although that is serious, but an incident the like of which we have not even contemplated for the past 20 years, such as a nuclear, chemical or biological attack in a city outside London.
With a conventional bomb or an accident such as a tube crash the right people are the police, the paramedics and the fire service. The forensic experts come later to analyse what specific explosives were used. However, if there is a risk that the incident involves chemical or biological agents, it is essential that the first people to respond include specialists who can identify what agents may have been used and therefore what protective measures must be taken. Special clothing or breathing apparatus may be needed and the local area may need to be evacuated. The scale of the operation will depend not only on the potency of the agent, but on how it was dispersed and the prevailing wind speed and direction.
I doubt whether that work can be done by local authority officials, but it could be done by regular forces, if they are around. The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of the footprint of the Territorial Army. That footprint has got rather more sparse since the SDR began to be implemented. I hope that serious consideration is given to specialists trained in the TA undertaking that function, and to the need for qualified personnel to get to a disaster or emergency scene quickly once it has been confirmed that there is no threat from chemical or biological agents. I cannot think of any group that could provide more numbers, competence and bravery than the TA.
The discussion paper on the new chapter for the SDR, which was published this morning, asked whether there were additional or enhanced roles for the TA and the
356
reserves. The original SDR took expertise in nuclear, chemical and biological attacks away from the reserves and concentrated it in a regular unit whose function is the protection of deployed forces, who may be 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 miles away. However, to quote the discussion paper, the reserves'
"wider geographical spread across the UK"
may suggest that leaving the reserves without an NBC capability is another SDR decision that should be reconsidered.
I repeat what I said earlier. As a result of the ending of the cold war, naturally the defence budget has declined. I do not think that anyone would argue that defence spending should be at cold war levels: 5 to 5.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. In those euphoric years following the end of the cold war, many argued that an era of peace was about to emerge.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Liberal Democrats asked the right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Committee, how much extra should be spent and he has just suggested that resuming cold war expenditure is not appropriate. Given the phenomenal risk not just to our country, but to western society, exposed by events in New York, surely we should consider a serious increase if we are to give our people the protection that they seek and deserve.
Mr. George: Absolutely, but a 0.5 per cent. increase would take us substantially above the level projected by the Conservative Government. If the threat is so severe, one must argue that we should spend the amount commensurate with it. Even 3 per cent. in the short term may be inadequate. I was asked a question and I do not want to duck it. A not insubstantial increase is desirable, but it must be—
Mr. Laws rose—
Mr. George: I am sorry, but Mr. Deputy Speaker will shortly cast his eye on me and the clock, so I dare not continue for much longer.
The figure that I gave is worthy of consideration, but, following 11 September, the House, the Secretary of State for Defence and other Secretaries of State must seriously analyse their responsibilities. No doubt the Government and the Defence Committee will recommend that the Department and this country's armed forces—Army, Navy and Air Force; regulars, the Territorial Army and reservists—play an enhanced role, but chronic departmentalism is a curse on the fight against the threat of terrorism and the emergencies of recent years. The matter is not only for the MOD.
It remains to be determined whether the structure is ideal, but the Cabinet unit that has been established must consider matters across the board, not as hitherto in terms of lead Departments with others not particularly interested or possibly subversive. These issues must be dealt with on a cross-departmental basis that involves all the structures of international, national, regional and local bodies.
In one, two or five years, the threat may have vanished, but I doubt it. The day after the bomb attacks in Washington, New York and Pennsylvania, I was about to go through security in my car when somebody 15 vehicles behind tooted their horn. I was told that one of our

357
colleagues was irritated by how long it was taking him or her to get through. The disaster of 11 September is not the only one that will occur. Nothing remotely similar has happened since, but that is due to luck, the action taken by the United States and others, good policing and good intelligence.
The House can be certain that organisations and individuals currently lying low are preparing for a repeat performance. Other organisations may consider what happened to be the baseline for their activities, because one that kills 1,000 or 2,000 people will be unfavourably compared to al-Qaeda, which killed 3,000. I am sure that private individuals and groups have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, so, although I do not want to be alarmist, we should consider the possibility of a threat to 30,000 people or more. Reacting to that does not mean merely tinkering with existing structures.
Although people may be irritated by airport delays, higher air ticket prices or tax increases caused by enhanced security measures, the Government must keep a sense of balance, as the Secretary of State said. However, "keeping a balance" must not suggest that we will not go too far or that some people are upgrading the threat for their own political purposes. We are in a dangerous world, and there is a threat to the United States and to this country and many others. We can only minimise the risk—it can never be eliminated—by mobilising the Government, the public and the private sector in any way we can to reduce the possibility of an attack such as that on Washington.
The MOD will play a pivotal role in that, as will our armed forces. Although we are focusing on that this afternoon, let us be certain that the MOD is but one cog in a much larger wheel. I hope that the Home Secretary and other Secretaries of State will also initiate a discussion on the role of their Departments and what they need to do, because the reaction must be more than departmental. We must synthesise departmental efforts. Unless we create a governmental approach, I am afraid that the additional resources that I hope will be made available will be badly distributed and badly spent.
3.17 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who always speaks with great passion, determination and sense. The debate is interesting and I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Later, I shall refer to a point that he raised.
I associate myself with the Secretary of State's tribute to our armed forces, which are a force for good. We see them on visits in this country and abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who cannot be present, was recently in Sierra Leone, and she wants to express to the Government the admiration of people there for the work being done. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is with the Foreign Secretary in Kabul today, will also see our armed forces at work. They are highly trained for intensive combat, dispensing aid, peacekeeping and peace enforcing. They are a credit to us all.
The talk of specialisation for some of our forces is slightly worrying. It is right that they should be able to perform the tasks specific to them, but the loss of their
358
astonishing all-round training may represent an enormous risk. Our defence forces' primary concern is protecting our nation, but, beyond that, their posture should be clearly foreign policy-led. The document produced for the forthcoming Liberal Democrat conference in Manchester makes that clear.
We have also said:
"In the 21st century even the most powerful of nations cannot guarantee its security in isolation.
Britain's defence policy must be flexible enough to respond to changes in the international strategic environment and yet underpinned by doctrines that allow for procurement decisions to be taken for equipment and related services that will be in use for decades to come.
Our armed forces should be configured to give decision-makers the widest possible freedom of action when responding to challenges to national security or international stability. Defence planners must look at developing global trends that will affect international stability and their impact on the scale and structure of national armed forces and alliance structures"
in which we are involved.
Our posture should be led by foreign policy, but more difficult to predict and plan for are the shock events that change the international environment and require the remodelling of international security structures. Such events might include the sudden unravelling of the Soviet empire and the end of the cold war, which transformed Europe and, consequently, the context for British security. Another example would be the terrorist attacks of September 2001, which required the reassessment of international capability. Events such as those mean that we must be capable of flexibility.
Rather than simply withdrawing our troops from the vital work that they do, we must reassess the structure of our armed forces for a new era. Before 11 September, the SDR provided a blueprint for a modern force with which almost all hon. Members agreed. However, I believe that the principles that underlay the SDR remain compelling, even after 11 September.
I pay tribute to the international security assistance force that has gone into Afghanistan. Liberal Democrat Members supported the Ministry's decision to send troops to Afghanistan, and we support the British lead in that force. However, the initial three-month period of British lead may be extended and the Turkish commitment has not yet been guaranteed. That is a matter for concern.
We believe that sending in a force such as ISAF requires us to be prepared to get the job done. Opposition Members should not complain about mission creep. British troops should be able to get home and spend time with their families, but that does not preclude them from fulfilling the peacekeeping duties that they perform so well. If we must maintain the British lead and involvement in ISAF beyond three months, Liberal Democrat Members will understand that, and support it.
It would be unwise to throw away or prejudice the success that we are achieving in Kabul by walking away. We must remember that ISAF operates under a UN mandate. It is for the Security Council, in consultation with the Interim Administration in Afghanistan, to consider stretching the mandate beyond six months, or undertaking a wider deployment beyond Kabul. However, such matters must be considered completely separately from the UK's involvement in ISAF. I repeat that ISAF must be made to work.

359
If we are to perform that role around the world, we must do so in conjunction with the UN, NATO, and Europe. There are flaws in the mechanism of pan-European defence, but that does not mean that we should discontinue the entire process. There is a vast European force, and it would be foolish and stubborn not to tap into it. If our allies can assist in deployment from Europe and help with international peacekeeping, it would be foolish for us to withdraw from that principle.
In the same way, I am committed to the principle that we can buy in bulk from the European Community, and that in so doing we can save money and create jobs. The system of pan-European procurement is complex and flawed, but we must not run away from the prospect. We must work to iron out the flaws and to develop closer co-operation to see how we can work more effectively together. If we can do that, we can save money, procure more smartly, create more jobs and begin to ease overstretch. To shun those possibilities would be foolish.
The Secretary of State has conceded that the British armed forces are stretched and operating at the limit of their capabilities. What is certain is that an ever-changing world is placing ever-increasing demands on our armed forces. It is a world in which our forces must be able to move at lightning speed, both in and out of conflicts.
We now have a modern expeditionary Army but, as the Secretary of State has conceded, our armed forces are stretched to their limits. The hon. Member for New Forest, West made some interesting points about the Army that we now have. When I talk to units lower down the order of battle, so to speak, I encounter concern that we are developing what amounts to a two-tier Army.
The forces that we use in conflict—the Paras, the Marines and the special forces—are the ones that undertake what might be called the sexy missions. There is no doubt that they are overstretched, but other units do not get their fair share of the sexy missions. Some of those units are beginning to be underused, and to feel undervalued.
Some 27 per cent. of the Army was committed to operations in January 2002. That is a vast improvement on the 44 per cent. committed at the height of the Kosovo campaign. However, the shortfall in trained strength means that some units more than others are bearing the brunt.
The SDR concluded that, for the Army, the optimum interval between tours should be at least 24 months, for operational effectiveness and retention. For the Parachute Regiment in 2000–01, however, the interval was only 18 months. for some units, such as field hospitals, the interval is down to just 12 months.
Ministers claim that, across the armed forces, the interval between tours is 30 months. However, for our special and elite forces and for other specialist units, the interval is far too short. There is therefore a danger that our armed forces will exist in two tiers—one overstretched, and one with morale problems because its personnel feel that they are not being used enough. For the members of some of those units, twiddling their thumbs can be just as demoralising as having to go from one operation to another.
The first way in which we must address the problem of overstretch is to look at its root cause, which we believe to be recruitment and, more especially, retention. We need
360
the right number and type of forces, and we must eliminate the shortfalls that exist in several areas. All hon. Members know about the shortage of pilots, which has been mentioned in the debate already. However, other shortfalls exist in mechanics, the defence medical services and elsewhere. We must have a coherent recruitment strategy.
The Government claim that their recruitment strategy is working. If so, they should be congratulated. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—who, sadly, cannot be present today—claimed earlier this week at Defence questions that the strategy was not working. If that is so, new policies must be introduced.
The pay increase proposed by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body of 3.7 per cent. was welcome. Ministers have claimed that the costs involved can be met within the current budget, but I fear that they cannot. We should also ensure that our forces have access to retraining, and that military qualifications are recognised in civilian life. In addition, we must provide our forces with higher-quality unaccompanied and family quarters.
Our armed forces personnel staff our most precious public service, and they are also the most important bit of kit that we have. The hon. Member for New Forest, West referred to statistics uncovered by Liberal Democrat Members showing that the pressure exerted on married life by service in the armed forces has caused a dramatic fall of 22 per cent. in the number of married armed forces personnel since Labour came to power. That compares with a fall of only 8 per cent. in overall strength. Given the severe recruitment problems that the forces are suffering, we cannot afford to lose those highly trained, experienced, mature and stable married members of our armed forces.
Why is a marriage in the Navy or the RAF twice as likely to break down as an Army marriage? In 2000– 01, the proportional change from married to other status in the Army was 1.8 per cent. That compares with 3.4 per cent. in the RAF, and 3.5 per cent. in the Navy. The disparity between the forces must be investigated. If best practice exists in the Army, it should be spread to the other forces.
I do not suggest that there should be marriage guidance counsellors on every base, but sensitivity to the concerns of families and partners is imperative for recruitment and retention.
Patrick Mercer: Might not it be significant that the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have settled family policies? Largely, families in those services live in one set of quarters for a lengthy period. In contrast, Army families tend to follow the drum. Although we all welcome the increase in pay recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are yet to hear about the increases in accommodation charges that are bound to follow?
Mr. Keetch: The hon. and gallant Member makes a crucial point. However, although I may not have explained it properly, my point was that more marriages break up in the Navy and the Royal Air Force than in the

361
Army. Your point, which is absolutely right, makes that disparity even more surprising. As you rightly say, one would expect that marriage break-ups—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said nothing.
Mr. Keetch: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is not just the nature of war that has changed over the course of the 20th century, but the nature of our society. Our armed forces are primarily made up of young people. I was privileged to visit the London university royal naval unit the other night. Some 50 young men and women in their first, second or third year at the university are going through the URNU course. Although one or two of them might join another service, about 20 per cent. will join the Royal Navy. It was interesting to talk to them and find out why they wanted to join the Navy, and what they expected of the service.
Almost without exception, those young men and women wanted to enter the service for a relatively short period. They did not see themselves staying in the service for as long as many of us might have expected. Other people were interested in the Royal Navy and prepared to spend time with URNU but not to join any of the services because they did not like the effect that they expected service life to have on their family life. Those young men and women had spent time at sea with the regular Navy and had spoken to people in the service but they were voting with their feet.
Those people are not distinct from the rest of society. Their values are those of the modern world. The House must be cautious about disregarding their values. We must not believe that things were better in the old days and that policies that worked when some of us served in the armed forces will work at present. That is not always so. When President Bush announced his substantial increase in defence spending, I was interested in the fact that a large part of it was devoted to family issues—pay, quarters and retention. It was not all about smart weapons, but about making sure that US forces were treated properly.
The Ministry of Defence must reflect on—and reflect—the modern world in which we live. All too often, we fail in that task. We must look after our armed service personnel. Armed forces pensions are a source of serious concern. Will they be fully funded? My question relates not only to the recent problems with tax deductions—I sincerely hope that they will be funded by the Treasury and not by the MOD—but to what is often regarded as the MOD's penny-pinching attitude. That has to stop.
We need minimum welfare standards on every base and they must be adhered to. We must have a service families charter, requiring delivery of standardised welfare services with annual reporting mechanisms. There should be a family officer on every base. There should be a review of the support offered to the forces family welfare organisations.
Much has been said about the Territorial Army and its home-guard role. I have enormous sympathy with the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee. Will people want to join the TA if it is merely to be some type of home guard? I suspect that they will not. The principle behind the suggestion is reasonable, but we must ensure that homeland security amounts to more than sentry duty. The TA could be trained to deal with terrorist attacks and
362
other civil emergencies. However, we must also maintain its specialist capabilities such as intelligence gathering, medical services and signalling.
We need a more co-ordinated strategy for our TA whereby we know the number of reservists who can be called up, rather than finding that only half of those called up are ready to be deployed. We need a co-ordinated, countrywide strategy to investigate where the addition of armed personnel would augment current security planning. That may not require enormous extra resources and might indeed save resources in other Departments, such as the Home Office. The TA could fulfil that role.
The SDR stressed the importance of flexible mobile forces. The new chapter repeats that. Under the SDR, the armed forces are expeditionary—able to move quickly and efficiently. We need procurement that is smart enough to give them the right equipment at the right price and the right time. I am deeply concerned that that will not happen with one procurement issue: the A400M.
I am a great believer in the project. I hope that it will work, but will the Minister of State answer these questions when he replies to the debate? Has the ability of the RAF to lease the four C17s been extended by two years as we have been told? Have negotiations been held with Boeing on leasing more C17s or indeed on purchasing the ones that we lease already? On what date will our ageing Hercules fleet cease to be significantly useful? Is he confident that the A400M will be ready to fill the gap? If he is not confident of that—whatever the reason—he should ensure that there will be aircraft to replace the Hercules fleet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked the Chairman of the Select Committee a question about finance. The Secretary of State seems already to have fired his opening shots in the comprehensive spending review and if my hon. Friend, who serves on the Select Committee on the Treasury, catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will come back to that point. The Chairman of the Select Committee believes that an increase of 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product is necessary. That would add between £ 4 billion and £ 5 billion to our defence budget, significantly increasing it above the rate of growth in the economy. If the right hon. Gentleman expects the Government to award that amount and will not be satisfied unless they do, there will be a significant increase.
Will the Secretary of State obtain that amount? Some people have talked about £1 billion. If the right hon. Gentleman does not obtain a significant increase, will we see tanks rolling from the MOD to the Treasury demanding funds before they roll into action elsewhere? Will the Minister tell us what amount is needed in the defence budget to enable our forces to operate not at the limits of their capacity—as the Secretary of State says—but within it?
The Government will soon have to take some difficult decisions. The provision of adequate resources for the defence of our citizens is the major responsibility of any Government. There is evidence that the programme outlined in the SDR may be unsustainable without an upward adjustment in defence expenditure or a reduction in capability. The efficiency targets of about 3 per cent. a year, which have been an annual feature of defence planning for more than a decade, will have to go. They are becoming progressively more difficult to achieve without reducing capability.

363
Schemes for a more rationalised approach to defence have offered economies. The outsourcing of defence activities has reduced costs. A series of initiatives have attempted to reduce the cost of equipment procurement. If the Government decide against real-terms rises in defence spending at the next CSR, they will have to initiate a future equipment programme, within an affordable cost profile, so as to meet the security challenges that we have heard about today.
We all agree that the MOD must adapt to a changing world. It must be prepared for substantial change; for example, there has been discussion in the media about the role of the main battle tank. Maintaining defence spending in real terms results in capability reductions each year unless clear savings are made through procurement. Will the Minister tell us whether—if he does not receive a boost in funding—he is considering reducing our main battle tank capability? Is he even considering not ordering as many Eurofighters?
A modern defence policy can involve modernising our defence capabilities. If the changes are for the benefit of our armed forces and of our nation, the Liberal Democrats will offer the Government our full support. If the changes do not offer those benefits, we shall oppose them. One thing is certain: our nation will face a threat at some time in the future—the problem is that we do not know where, when, how or why. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that, when that threat materialises, we are ready.
3.38 pm
Harry Cohen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) who made several interesting points that were well worth listening to and studying. However, I want to caution him about one point as regards language. He equated war and killing with "sexy missions". That is an inappropriate attitude and it should not be encouraged.
The events of 11 September were a tragedy on an enormous—perhaps incomprehensible—scale. The culture of any country subjected to such an attack in peacetime would be jolted and shocked. Having suffered those appalling attacks, the United States Government took several significant decisions about their future defence policy. Those decisions will have major repercussions for Britain and the rest of the world.
The Americans feel vulnerable and they want to show signs of strength to make themselves feel more secure. However, it is a symptom of underlying weakness if the answer is to threaten all and sundry. One could also argue that many terrorists will feel a sense of victory that they have so rattled the American Government. I would not want to give such vicious thugs any sense of victory.
The increase in defence expenditure proposed by President Bush means that the United States will be spending more than the 15 next-largest defence expenditures combined. But that money is oddly spent. For example, the Americans can find funds to build a new dispenser for their cluster bombs, but not to design a new bomblet that will self-destruct or make it self safe if it does not explode on impact with the ground. The faulty bomblets become land mines in all but name so their use is morally reprehensible, yet the Americans do not find that a priority for funding.
364
The increased defence expenditure is paralleled by a new sense of US unilateral action. At present, Britain is America's strongest ally, but we should be careful as regards the extent to which we are willing to support America. The press is full of reports that the US plans a large-scale attack on Iraq. That would be an awful mistake and make the region less stable. It would also create grievance to an extent that could foster future terrorism. The Americans are also pressing ahead with national missile defence, a scheme that will eventually require British bases. The British Government should resist the temptation to approve the use of those bases, as NMD is likely to make the world less safe, not more so.
The US has also taken unilateral action on arms control—action that has undermined multilateral efforts. Controls on small arms and biological weapons have been weakened by American policies. Although arms control is not the whole solution to many of the problems, it is one of the most flexible tools available for promoting international security. It also sets international standards of behaviour. Without those standards, how do we assess what is right and wrong?
I do not say any of this out of a sense of anti-Americanism. Aside from the problems with certain weapons and tactics, the Americans have performed a valuable role in Kosovo and in Afghanistan, although I wish that they would do more for the humanitarian reconstruction there now. However, I have always regarded the fight against terrorism as having only a small military component. The major work has to be political and legal, including work to secure a peaceful, just outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and an international crackdown on money laundering and corruption. On the latter, Britain, with its connections with overseas territories and its wide range of trading partners, can play a key role.
More important, the Ministry of Defence can play an important part. There is an official British report that is reputed to include details of corrupt handling of funds in the biggest arms deal in which Britain has ever been involved. That report has been kept secret, one excuse being that the Ministry of Defence would want to keep it so. Perhaps it is time for the MOD to declare that it is happy for the report to be published.
That report was written by officials in the National Audit Office in 1992 and has remained secret ever since. It is said to be critical of the way in which commissions and kickbacks were paid as part of the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Coincidentally, John Bourn became head of the Audit Office at about the same time—having just moved from the MOD, where his responsibilities included the Al Yamamah deal. I understand that it was Mr. Bourn's decision to keep that report secret. I do not allege any wrongdoing on his part as an individual, but I fear that that does reveal a conflict of interest.
Al Yamamah is said to have made many unnamed individuals in Saudi Arabia very rich. It is also said that many unnamed individuals in Saudi Arabia have given substantial funds to support bin Laden. I cannot prove that there is any overlap between these two groups of unnamed individuals, but that is due in part to the excessive secrecy surrounding that arms deal. Some people have asked why, given that the report has been secret for so long, it should

365
be released now. I would reply, "Because the truth deserves it, and because a Labour Government should not be covering up the Tories' dirty work."
I cheered at the news that the United States had declared Taliban captives in Afghanistan prisoners of war. Then it was soured for me by the insistence that that would not apply to the al-Qaeda captives. If it is deemed that they are a criminal gang, proper law should apply, with accepted legal rights afforded, and with transparent, fair trials. But the military action was proclaimed loudly as a war on terrorism, so I consider that the captives should be deemed prisoners of war and treated accordingly, with transparent custody arrangements in line with internationally accepted norms—in this case, the Geneva convention. In both cases, there should be proper prison arrangements without humiliating and degrading treatment or torture, and international inspection should be allowed.
In recent conflicts, the United States and the United Kingdom have not declared their military actions to be wars; indeed, they have specifically claimed that they are not wars. That claim, combined with the refusal of the United States to treat al-Qaeda captives as prisoners of war, has dangerous implications. UK and US troops in current or future undeclared wars, if captured, may not be afforded prisoner of war status and treated decently, and the current US precedent in Cuba could be cited.
I wish to make some points on defence costs. First, the fact that the United States is dramatically increasing defence spending does not mean that we should automatically follow suit. The last time that the US combined tax cuts with defence rises, under President Reagan, it went from being the biggest creditor nation in the world to being the biggest debtor nation in double-quick time. We should not follow that "going broke" route. Secondly, we should not indirectly subsidise the United States' NMD programme and its break with important arms control treaties by allowing it to shift some of its military objectives, which may not be our priorities, on to us.
Thirdly, the defence gap between the United Kingdom and the United States is now so huge that it can never be filled. Our defence spending comparator should be with other countries, not with the United States. Fourthly, with the ending of the cold war, and friendship with a far less military Russia, the "threat" is simply not there to justify spending on such a vast scale. Fifthly, we should not take part in a defence increases competition that triggers a new arms race.
I do favour defence increases in some specific areas, such as all-weather planes and equipment, better refuelling facilities, and more precision-guided weaponry as part of a process for ending the use of cluster bombs, but those increases must be justified, not generalised; otherwise—the public would say this too—the money is better spent on the national health service.
3.48 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him precisely, because although I always listen to him with deep affection, it is usually with deep disagreement as well. I did agree with some things that he said; I shall mention them later.
The Secretary of State had many interesting things to say about the future of the armed forces. We shall applaud some of what he says and we shall listen with critical
366
interest to many of the other things, but now that I am no longer on the Front Bench, and this is by way of being a sort of maiden speech, I can speak freely, without committing my party, on a view that I have increasingly held in recent years. That view is as follows.
As the Secretary of State said, the end of the cold war encouraged us to take what was called the peace dividend. Essentially, that meant spending less on the armed forces because the threat had reduced. In fact, the threat had changed, but in a way that should have encouraged us to spend not less but more on the armed forces, because while the cold war continued, it allowed us to rely very heavily on the highly cost-effective deterrent of nuclear missiles. The end of the cold war made it increasingly unlikely that we or anyone could rely heavily on that. If a nuclear bomb goes off in London tomorrow, does anyone seriously imagine that we will immediately press the button? That would not happen without a great deal of thought and hesitation. After all, at whom would we aim the weapons? I am not suggesting that we should get rid of our nuclear weapons, but it is obvious that they no longer work as the all-purpose deterrent that they once were.
We need to rebuild our reliance on conventional forces. That means spending lots more money. We need to pay our armed forces lots more so that they can recruit and retain more personnel and buy better and more modern equipment, if only so that we can operate with the United States. The world is not safer as a consequence of the end of the cold war; it is less certain and more dangerous. The west is not reacting to that danger, with the noble exception of the US, in the right way. Instead, we are reacting in precisely the wrong way. Although the Secretary of State had many interesting things to say about the armed forces, none of what he said matters while we give the defence of our country and our values such a low priority in spending terms.
I want to devote the rest of my contribution to the treatment of our armed forces as exemplified by the 1994 Chinook crash. A dark cloud hangs over the credibility of the Ministry of Defence as a result of its handling of that crash, and that will affect recruitment, retention and morale. I remind the House that because the pilots died and were unable to defend themselves, RAF rules required that they could not be found negligent unless there was absolutely no doubt whatever.
In July 1995, I became Minister of State, and in a debate on the RAF on 6 February 1997 I defended the decision by the RAF board of inquiry that the pilots had been grossly negligent. I have since discovered, to my considerable shame, that I was wrong to have done so. I have apologised to the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who campaigned on the issue, and I repeat that apology to the House. A more important consideration, however, is that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the crash, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has also seen the new evidence and has called for the verdict to be set aside.
The 1996 fatal accident inquiry in Scotland, working on the basis of a standard of proof much easier to satisfy—the balance of probabilities—was unable to come to a conclusion about the cause of the accident. In November 2000, the Public Accounts Committee investigated the incident and concluded:
"The finding of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD-576 does not satisfy the burden of proof required".

367
Last week, after an exhaustive inquiry into the evidence, a Select Committee in another place concluded unanimously:
"It is not our role to determine the likely cause of this accident, and indeed on the evidence which we have heard and read it would be impossible to do so. We are nevertheless satisfied, on the evidence before us and against the standard of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash."
So that highly distinguished Committee, including four experienced lawyers—one of them a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—and an engineer, have decided not just that there is a doubt, but that it is impossible to determine even the likely cause of the accident. One could not ask for a more definitive analysis of the incident than theirs.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I know that my hon. Friend strongly disagrees with me, but I give way to him with great pleasure.
Mr. Wilkinson: The flying experience of the two air marshals was considerable and was gathered over many years. In the course of their careers, they would have had much experience of bad weather and other difficult circumstances. Members of the Committee in the other place were mainly lawyers and spent their formative lives and careers in different circumstances. I put my money on the air marshals' judgment.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right, but the station commanders at RAF Aldergrove and RAF Odiham also had many years of flying experience. They were part of the initial investigating board and did not find that the pilots were negligent when judged against the standard of proof required.
What is it that makes the Ministry of Defence, alone in the world, cling stubbornly to its discredited findings? It cannot be that it thinks that changing its mind will make it look bad because it knows perfectly well that the longer it clings to the verdict, the more unfair it looks. I hate it when that Ministry of all Ministries looks foolish. I obviously do not mind the Government looking less than perfect, but I am attached to the Ministry of Defence and it carries the reputation of this country with it.
So what is it that makes the Ministry of Defence stick to the verdict? I will run briefly through its arguments. First, it says that there is nothing new in the other reports. Clearly it is wrong about that. What is "new" for these purposes is what we know now that the board of inquiry did not know then, and on that basis there is much new information. The board of inquiry apparently did not know that there were problems with the full authority digital engine control system—FADEC—and that the Ministry was successfully taking Textron-Lycoming, the manufacturers in the USA, to arbitration. The board apparently did not know that the Boeing simulation that it relied on to tell it what had happened did not model FADEC. According to Tony Cable of the air accidents investigation branch, the Boeing simulation would have had "really quite different characteristics." It apparently did not know that the leading technical aircrew specialist on Chinooks, Squadron Leader Burke, had had recurring
368
experience of engine problems with the Chinook, but he had been ordered—we do not know why—not to take any further part in the investigation, so he did not tell the board of inquiry about it.
All of that is new, but the Ministry of Defence has taken on itself the task of defining what is new, which it takes to exclude everything that I have just mentioned and everything that might make it change its mind. It is beginning to look stubborn and foolish. In any event, the Ministry of Defence's insistence on new evidence is wrong in principle. It is wrong to insist on new evidence or new considerations if that leaves in place a verdict that is manifestly not supported by the old evidence.
So why is the Ministry sticking to the verdict? Its next argument, strongly made over the past few years, is that the pilots should not have been where they were: they were flying too fast and too low for the weather conditions and the terrain. It is the Ministry's view that even if there were problems with the engine or FADEC, had the pilots turned earlier or slowed down or climbed they would have been able to deal with those problems and would not have hit the Mull of Kintyre.
All of that, of course, assumes that the pilots were in control of the aircraft and able to turn, slow down, or climb. The air marshals assert that they were. The Ministry's standard letter says:
"they should by this time already have chosen an alternative course. But given that they had not done so, they could and should immediately then have either turned away from the Mull or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude."
However, there is no evidence that they could have done that.
The report of the Select Committee in another place tears that theory to pieces. It states:
"We consider that Sir John's conclusions on this matter must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which had been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions."
The air marshals had no evidence about the course or speed of the aircraft at any time before the impact, nor of the time of the way-point change or the height of the aircraft at which the change was made.
In other words, we are awash with things we do not know, even now, and the board of inquiry did not know those things, but made the mistake of thinking it did. So in a case where there has to be absolutely no doubt whatever, there is masses of doubt. Even in the early stages, there was so much doubt that the investigating board and the station commanders at RAF Aldergrove and RAF Odiham did not find the pilots negligent.
The doubt is not confined to those matters raised in front of the Select Committee in another place. We do not know, for example, whether either of the pilots was ill. We do not know whether they had a disagreement between themselves about the course to take. There was no cockpit voice recorder and no black box. The fact that there is no evidence of illness or disagreement does not mean that it did not happen. The mistake that the air marshals made is that, because they thought they knew what had probably happened—although we now know that they did not—they translated that into absolutely no doubt whatever.
Mr. Joyce: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me about something. My understanding is that,

369
if the weather was bad, the helicopter should have been flying at about 10,000 ft, but it was not; it was flying too low. So regardless of any problems with equipment—FADEC or anything else—the helicopter should have been flying high. If it had a massive problem, it might have plummeted from the sky, but it would not have hit the Mull of Kintyre. That is the crux of the issue, not the technicalities that the right hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee in another place have mentioned. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that fact?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am happy to do so. The question of how bad the weather was is crucial to the board of inquiry's finding. Mr. Holbrook, the skipper of the yacht who saw the Chinook flying over and saw sunlight glinting on its side and guessed that it was flying at about 80 or 90 mph, said that he could see bits of the Mull from his yacht. He was asked three questions by the board of inquiry, and it constructed from his brief answers to those questions a view of the weather pattern, which, as the Select Committee report from another place shows, is simply not borne out by what was said then or by what Mr. Holbrook believed. I invite the hon. Gentleman please to read the Select Committee report from another place, which examines the evidence of the weather and what the pilots may or may not have been able to see from the height and at the speed at which we think they may have been flying.
I have just used the word "mistake". The air marshals made a mistake in thinking that they knew things that they did not know. I still believe that that was a mistake. I agree with the Public Accounts Committee report, which stated:
"We believe that the reviewing officers in the case of ZD576 reached their conclusions in good faith".
In fact, I believe that I can even pinpoint where the mistake took place. In paragraph 2 of part 4 of the RAF board of inquiry's findings, Sir John Day says:
"The Board and the Officer Commanding RAF Odiham postulate various factors and scenarios, including possible distraction or disorientation, in attempting to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules. In my judgement, none of the possible factors and scenarios are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight."
But, in using the word "likely", he is applying the wrong test. Because the pilots have died, the proper test is one not of the likelihood, but of having absolutely no doubt whatever. I do not attack or belittle Sir John Day for applying the wrong test—I merely point out that he has done so. He is not legally qualified and he did not have any legal advice.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I know that my right hon. Friend is coming to the end of his speech. Before he finishes it, will he comment on the fact that—I believe that I am correct—the RAF has now altered its rules so that, if anything similar were to happen again, deceased pilots could not be blamed in that way? If as a result of this case the RAF has decided that it is an injustice to blame deceased pilots in that way, surely it would only be justice to absolve those pilots?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I believe that that is so. My hon. Friend is right to say that the MOD has changed the rules and has decided to leave the attribution of blame for
370
Negligence. to the civil courts, and it is right to have done that. I am aware of no other case in which deceased pilots have been found negligent. This is the only case in which that has happened.
Given that, as a result of the air marshals' remarks, the RAF board of inquiry applied the wrong test, what are we to do? The MOD says that it requires new evidence, but that is wrong. All we need is the new realisation that the old finding is unsafe and always has been because, while an evident injustice remains, to leave it in the records is a dishonourable thing to do. It no longer dishonours the pilots because the world now acknowledges that their reputations have been cleared. They have died in the service of their country, and we can be proud of them. The people whom the present situation dishonours are those who have stubbornly, foolishly and unfairly refused to do the right thing. This issue is never going to go away until it is put right.
4.7 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to speak about Britain's involvement in the United States national missile defence programme, particularly the work that is going ahead at Fylingdales, the satellite tracking station in Yorkshire, not far from my constituency. Fylingdales is integral to NMD, but I first want to consider the international framework in which Fylingdales operates.
President Bush's state of the union speech set a framework of permanent global military intervention by the United States. That should give us all reason for concern. He said:
"far from ending"—
in Afghanistan—
"our war against terror is only beginning."
It will encompass the whole world. He went on to say that, to handle the terrorist threat, we must
"develop and deploy effective missile defences to protect America and our allies from sudden attack".
As has been said many times inside and outside the House, even if an NMD system had been in place, it would have contributed absolutely zero to stopping the terrible events of 11 September. The Bush Administration has never explained the logic of connecting 11 September to the star wars programme—quite simply, they are not connected. However, the emotions that that terrible terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre understandably evokes in ordinary Americans have been exploited by the Administration to push through the enormous increase in military spending that developing NMD requires. I shall come to that in a moment. By including North Korea as part of his so-called evil axis, President Bush is blatantly seeking to justify his harmful and destabilising star wars programme.
As many hon. Members are aware, much of Europe has reacted unfavourably to President Bush's speech. There are still considerable reservations worldwide about NMD. Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister, has described Bush's world view as simplistic and unilateralist, and I agree with him, as does European public opinion, as a growing number of polls in Europe show.
The permanent global intervention that President Bush's speech foreshadows will also include a new and even broader out-of-area role for NATO. It will therefore affect this country directly. Speaking at an international

371
conference in Germany last weekend, the US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that NATO needed
"a military transformation agenda"
to develop
"its capacities in counter-terrorism".
He also warned European allies that, if America does not get its way on this issue, it is ready to act outside its traditional alliances. He said:
"The mission must determine the coalition, the coalition must not determine the mission."
That is an alarming development.
A report in The Guardian today should also cause us great concern:
"The Pentagon and the CIA have begun preparations for an assault on Iraq involving up to 200,000 US troops that is likely to be launched later this year with the aim of removing Saddam Hussein from power, US and diplomatic sources told the Guardian yesterday."
[Interruption.] I am glad that that prospect draws a cavalier response from Conservative Members. I hope that they will be just as happy if that scenario occurs and there are many deaths as a result. What concerns me is that, in spite of much opposition from the French, the Germans and other European allies, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have refused to join in the public outcry about such blatant warmongering. In fact, a Foreign Office official said yesterday that military action, although not imminent, could happen in "a question of months." A Foreign Office spokesman later added:
"The prime minister has made it clear from the outset that the campaign would have two phases: the first focusing on Afghanistan and the second looking at different aspects of international terrorism."
Will the Minister tell the House whether we will acquiesce in and support such a worldwide extension of warfare?
Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the hon. Lady were faced with overwhelming evidence to her satisfaction that countries such as Iraq or Iran not only had the capability to attack this country and her constituents but had every intention of doing so, would she be content to wait until they attacked her constituents, or would she support her Government if they decided to make a pre-emptive strike?
Mrs. Mahon: No evidence has ever been produced that Iraq wants to attack this country, although, as a matter of fact, we attack Iraq almost weekly. I shall raise that issue at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels this weekend. If the Americans repeat their desire to extend the military action, the House should have further debates on the matter.
If we are America's best friends—we are the American people's best friends, as we share language and culture—as true friends, we should tell them that the escalation of military action will simply bring about another arms race, which will be devastating for the rest of the world.
I want to refer to the effect of national missile defence on military spending. As we know, the US military budget will climb to $360 billion this year and to $396 billion in 2003. US military spending already accounts for 17.8 per
372
cent. of the Federal budget. By 2003, it is calculated that it will reach more than 30 per cent. in nominal terms—almost a quarter of the total budget in real terms. The United States already spends more than a third of the world's total military expenditure. That is more than the expenditure of the next nine biggest spenders combined and more than three times the amount spent by all its potential enemies. The budget increase is the biggest in military spending in two decades and military spending will rival that at the height of the cold war.
National missile defence accounts for a large chunk of Pentagon spending. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of such spending at $238 billion over the next 15 years. We all know that such calculations—especially official calculations—are usually notorious for underestimating the eventual real cost. When I consider the poverty and despair in much of the developing world, I believe that such expenditure is an obscenity.
We have heard calls this afternoon for much more military spending. People say that there is no free lunch for Europe or for Britain. The Secretary-General of NATO is already calling for European allies to step up their military spending and he took what the BBC called the "unprecedented step" of declaring 11 September to be an assault on the alliance as a whole. He said that European forces would be unable to operate alongside United States forces unless budgets are massively increased.
I am also worried about the domestic programme. I want to defend our country, but I am not certain that spending billions and billions on star wars is the way to do that. A substantial increase in our budget would knock out our plans to improve health, education and to do something about the transport system. A serious debate about Britain's attitude to missile defence is long overdue. We need to consider the danger that it poses to Britain, which will become a target if we are involved, and the cost.
Patrick Mercer: Does the hon. Lady not agree that we are already a target and are extremely vulnerable? We suffered severe casualties on 11 September, albeit not within these shores. If the hon. Lady is content for defence expenditure to increase, in which areas does she want that to happen? More to the point, does she not understand that we must defend ourselves to prevent our hospitals and transport system from being overwhelmed by the number of casualties that the Americans suffered?
Mrs. Mahon: I am the product of a family in which every male member fought in the second world war, and with great honour in some cases—I refer particularly to my father—so I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am in favour of strong defence. I am not in favour of anything that might make us more vulnerable. As I have already said, the attack on the World Trade Centre would not have been prevented by the most sophisticated national missile defence system in the world. Such a system would not prevent suitcase bombs, but diplomacy, conflict resolution, conflict prevention and feeding the starving just might have a chance of getting rid of the militants.
I refer again to Fylingdales and to the lack of parliamentary involvement in what is going on there. As colleagues know, Fylingdales is the missile tracking

373
centre for the northern hemisphere and upgrading the facility is vital to the United States missile defence programme. I am informed by local sources, who are following the matter closely, that work has already begun on upgrading Fylingdales and doing what the Americans want us to do. That is taking place even before Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss the issue.
We know that plans are under way to improve security at the base, because it is known that Government support for national missile defence will generate much more protest than it is at the moment. Because military installations do not need to apply for planning permission, the work is going ahead without the local authority's involvement. There has been far too much silence, secrecy and evasion from those on the Govt Front Bench. It is ridiculous to keep saying that Britain will not adopt an attitude until we are asked.
The Government must come clean, because there is considerable unease among Labour Members and those of other parties. It is high time Parliament was allowed to debate the issue openly and transparently. Already, it is raised almost weekly in meetings of the parliamentary Labour party. The decision to support the Americans on national missile defence is far too important to the peace and stability of the whole world for one or two Ministers—important—and their advisers to take in secret. We should debate it openly. I hope that the Minister will have some answers for us tonight.
4.20 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: There is so much on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that I shall not follow the path of her speech. However, I agree entirely that if one is a good friend of another country, one reserves the right to say, "Yes, but." Perhaps that is something that we need to do more often.
I congratulate the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), with whom I was a close colleague at the Ministry of Defence, on a speech that I regard as outstandingly courageous and honourable. I do not think that I have heard anything like it in my 18 years in the House of Commons, and I commend him warmly on it. I do not agree with him on the question of Chinook, but I know that he holds the strongest and most detailed views and has gone into the matter with great clarity. Again, I commend him on his tremendous courage in the presentation of his case, which was not an easy thing to do. I entirely agree with the first part of his speech, about the absolute requirement for us to spend more money on conventional defence and on our armed forces generally.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on a wonderful speech delivered from the Dispatch Box. After finding that he had to open for the Opposition, he covered himself in glory. It is wonderful to hear such enthusiasm, pleasure and knowledge of the subject. I, too, spent a little time at the school in the Brecon Beacons; I did not enjoy it as much as he did, and I never want to repeat the experience. However, those who met him there will have been thrilled by his enthusiasm.
I wish to pay a handsome tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, and to their long-suffering families who put up with so much. We are truly proud of them, and
374
we are extremely lucky to have such wonderful people. I am not sure that we still deserve them, but we have remarkable armed services. I am glad that this debate is taking place, and I congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on producing "A New Chapter". It is admirable of them to produce a discussion document of that type and to try to persuade more of the general public to take an interest in so fundamental an issue as defence policy.
There is no doubt that the SDR, which was in many ways a useful document, needed an additional chapter in the light of 11 September. Many would say that it needed an additional chapter in any event. It is almost as if the threat had not been properly analysed in the original SDR. We thought that we lived in a largely threatless world. How desperately wrong we were, and how very unprepared. It is extremely difficult to make sense of the threat and to manage it. In military, diplomatic and political terms, there are broad requirements to learn new skills, and a clear need to make new dispositions.
The war on terrorism has made a good start—a brilliantly executed military campaign with a well assembled and broad coalition put together with speed and great skill. Many important lessons will have been learned. However, a great deal remains to be done to track down the terrorist networks. I agree wholly with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), about the dangers that have to be faced and dealt with that lurk in this country and many others. We cannot pretend that they do not exist. I know that our country, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, and all the other agencies are playing an important role using some of our most special assets.
I pay in particular a handsome and generous tribute to our intelligence agencies, to which we owe a great debt, and to the soldiers, sailors and airmen involved in those operations. The Government, we must therefore hope, are constantly redefining the threat assessment as it is today. They must also ensure that our intelligence agencies are fully resourced, clearly and correctly tasked and, most important of all, that they unambiguously co-operate with each other. We need to continue the welcome work being done by the Ministry of Defence of redefining our conclusions as to the size and shape of our armed forces. Above all, our armed forces must be structured and resourced to meet the unpredictable, at short notice, when required.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is no longer present. He always provided tremendous encouragement to those of us at the Ministry of Defence about the Territorial Army I am not as well informed about the TA as I should be When I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, we went through some tremendous heart searching about the TA's future. I thought that we had arrived at a sensible and achievable number and role, but subsequently the Labour Government, in the light of the SDR, further substantially diminished the size of the TA, and by so doing gravely affected the TA's stability, its ability to deliver what it needed to deliver and, most important, the size of the already very small military footprint in the country.
Along comes a major new threat, and the TA is likely to be re-roled again. I agree with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South that merely to offer the TA the role of glorified military police is not right. The TA has far more

375
than that to contribute. Where our troops of all three services on deployment would be without the TA, I simply do not know. We need to maintain that good, specialist edge that delivers so much to our services, perhaps at the same time as reviewing whether there might be a category that could be cap-badged or assigned the task of guarding duties.
That would not be unwelcome, and I would be interested to hear the response of the TA and those who know about it. Whatever size the TA arrives at and whatever tasks it is assigned, it needs to be relevant, usable and, above all, fully integrated into the Army's readiness cycle.
Mr. Mark Francois: As an ex-TA officer, let me make the point that when the Government reduced the TA, the largest cut fell on the infantry battalions—they took a disproportionate hit. Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments, might it not be that the infantry battalions, if some of them were restored, would be well suited to playing a role in homeland defence, without taking away from the specialist nature of other elements of the TA?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely sensible point. I hope that the Minister of State for Defence heard it. It is always the poor bloody infantry who get it in the ear. They got it disgracefully badly under the Conservative Government. In fact, in my time as a sycophantic Back-Bench running-dog lackey of the Conservative Government, the only occasion on which I voted against them was on their decision, under "Options for Change", to cut savagely the number of infantry battalions, to the great disadvantage of the Army ever since. As a former TA officer, my hon. Friend clearly knows a great deal about the subject and his is a sensible idea.
Nothing I have to say reflects in any way on the Minister of State for Defence, and I dislike having to say this, but in my view the Government take the armed forces for granted. It is not possible for the Government to repeat endlessly how much they value the armed forces while simultaneously starving them of financial resources.
My Government had great difficulty in finding money for the armed forces. The Secretary of State will be in an impossible position; he will be in a state of naked, aggressive warfare with the Treasury, which, as I have always said to the right hon. Gentleman and the House, is well known to work for the Russians, and not for us. He will find it extremely difficult to get the money that he needs. We must remember, because we have all forgotten what happened, that we all took it as read that the SDR was a good thing and believed that the Government would fund it as they said they would, but they did not fund it properly. It has never been funded properly.
The most important warning that I can give the Government is that on the now sadly few occasions when I get to meet men and women serving in the armed forces, I feel that they feel that they are being taken for granted and that their quality, efficiency and effectiveness are appreciated only at moments of high drama and great crisis. I think, I am afraid to say, that there is an element of truth in that, although I do not assign responsibility for that to the Minister of State.
376
It all started rather well, but with the relentless, baleful and ignorant pressure from the Treasury, the Government soon reverted to serious underfunding. The consequences are that the armed forces need at least £ 500 million a year extra, without which further cuts will have to be made. I warn the Secretary of State that if undermanning and overstretch continue, not only will there be problems in maintaining the high morale and efficiency of the armed forces, but things will inevitably start to go wrong in the military field, and the Government will not be able to take for granted the effectiveness in the armed forces that is absolutely guaranteed at present. In light of recent events, it would be a great mistake for the Government not fully to fund this priceless and golden national asset.
The money needs to go towards not only filling the gaps, which certainly existed when the Opposition were in power, but dealing with those things that the forces are very good at and which are extremely relevant to the profession of arms and the use of our armed forces at the moment. There are five separate areas: command and mission command, information and intelligence, fightability, sustainability and trainability. Those are all areas in which we need to make significant investment to maintain and further the pre-eminence of the British skill at arms. There are real strengths that need continuously to be developed in light of the new strategic situation.
I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) about the two tiers of the armed forces. I cannot tell the Minister of State how damaging it is for high-profile operations always to be carried out by the Royal Marines and the Paras. Every regiment of the line should be capable of undertaking those operations.
If we make any pretence that we will go on spending money on training for high-intensity land battle, it is absolute nonsense if, throughout the training cycle, the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, or any other regiment, comes to the peak of its fitness and operational effectiveness, having finished its medicine man training at the British Army training unit, Suffield, only to find again and again that it is not deemed suitable to undertake one of those operations.
Come an emergency, even a restricted one, such regiments would be shovelled out into the field as quickly as possible. Give them a chance, and let them show that regiments other than the Royal Marines and the Paras, both of which are remarkable and do a wonderful job, could do exactly the same job, given the chance.
Ever since the end of the cold war, NATO has been searching for a new role. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire and I were in the Ministry of Defence at a particularly fascinating time, with the Werner doctrine just coming in and the partnership for peace. We made thrilling visits to countries in eastern Europe which had been free from communist rule for only a few weeks or months. They were longing to learn how to run a proper army and a democratic system, and wanted people to come to the staff college and the Royal College of Defence Studies to take part in military training, so that they could eventually join NATO.
I hope that NATO will expand, but we need to be clear and confident that despite its limitations, which are many, it remains a formidable and hugely successful alliance. Unless it reforms itself, it will cease to be of real military importance and it will be merely politically important.

377
I applaud the work of our former colleague Lord Robertson, who clearly appreciates those difficulties and who must be driven mad by the failure of the defence capabilities initiative.
Many NATO forces are wholly inadequately funded; they are unco-ordinated and unprepared, and they are neither properly trained nor properly equipped. Most continental forces have only the most basic logistics and communications capabilities, and hardly any of them can operate at any distance from home. Few can sustain operations with any credibility, and in almost every respect those forces have to rely almost entirely on the United States for intelligence, strategic support and military muscle.
The really serious military questions have now got to be dealt with, and we must give a lead on that in NATO and elsewhere in Europe. NATO must chuck the rhetoric out of the window and deal with the questions of operational capacity and effectiveness within its force structures. Above all, it must address Europe's shameful dependence on United States forces. We Europeans really must do more and take more responsibility for our own security.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire said, that means seriously increasing defence spending and placing greater emphasis on rapidly deployable and, probably, special forces, intelligence, surveillance and precision weapons. NATO is still crucial to a stable world. It is the only organisation that binds the United States to Europe, and Europe to the United States. There is no need for it to have a collective nervous breakdown; rather, it can take a clear, rational look at what it must do, set out a sensible, pragmatic programme to do it and get on with it.
Finally, and I apologise for speaking for so long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have on many occasions spoken in defence debates in the House on the question of military ethos. I accept that it is no longer a fashionable subject, but I want to make one serious point in conclusion. There is no other place in British life in which there is so much of human achievement in such small institutions as there is in the British armed forces.
I hope that the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and, above all, the Chancellor understand—and I really mean understand—that as Lord Wavell said in his lecture on generalship, in the last resort, the end of all military training, the settling of all policy, the ordering of all weaponry and all that goes into the makings of the armed forces is that the deciding factor in battle is this: sooner or later, Private So-and-so will, of his own free will and in the face of great danger and chaos, have to advance to his front in the face of the enemy. If all that goes wrong, after all the training, the intensive preparation and the provision of equipment and expenditure, the system has failed. But it has never failed in this country; the armed forces have never ever let us down. If the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State let them down by failing to pay the debt that they owe them by properly resourcing them now, they will not be forgiven, and our wonderful armed forces will gradually diminish.
378
On 8 October 2001, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), said:
"We have already made it clear—the Chancellor did so the other day—that the armed forces should have the resources necessary to do the job. It would not be fair or right to ask them to do it without them being properly resourced and they will be."—[Official Report, 8 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 819.]
The Government have not honoured that obligation, and the Prime Minister will be in breach of a fundamental and unconditional undertaking made in the House if he does not see to it that the matter is dealt with.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, it is clear that a large number of Members are seeking to catch my eye. I appeal for speeches to be brief so that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate.
4.41 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The strategic defence review was foreign policy-led, and it is perfectly proper that the new chapter is foreign policy-led, particularly taking into account the events of 11 September, asymmetric threats, greater security concerns and, perhaps, the greater importance of United Nations peacekeeping and nation-building work.
As has been said, I believe that the first stage of the campaign against terror, our military campaign in Afghanistan, has been substantially successful. I back my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) in saying that whatever our reservations about aspects of the campaign, we must give credit to the United States particularly, but also to our armed forces and intelligence service for the part that they played. However, I am concerned that in the overall campaign against terror, there are a number of ways in which we could still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; I shall talk about one or two of those.
I said that I wanted to concentrate on the foreign policy lead for defence. I should particularly like to concentrate on UK-US relations and the Foreign Secretary's speech last week, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred. In that speech at King's college, the Foreign Secretary suggested that arms control had been substantially successful, and referred in particular to the success of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; a number of countries have given up nuclear weapons and other countries, which at one stage were thought might develop such weapons, have refused to do so. However, it should not be forgotten how difficult it was to reach agreement at the review conference in 2000. The Foreign Office played a key role in that success. Everybody agreed, both then and subsequently at the United Nations, that all countries would seek to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty as quickly as possible, and to maintain and strengthen the anti-ballistic missile treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability.
The Foreign Secretary pointed out that the test ban treaty had not yet been broken by the United States, but did not refer to the fact that the US has clearly signalled that it has no intention of ratifying it and, in fact, is seeking to breach it as quickly as possible. It is always said that the ABM treaty is a bilateral treaty; in 2000, I repeat, all states made undertakings that were genuinely multilateral.

379
The hon. Member for New Forest, West referred to the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that there was "new thinking". Twenty years ago, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle et al said that the ABM treaty was out of date and that we must develop star wars. Now, they say that that treaty is 30 years out of date and that we must develop star wars. I know that some people argue that some members of the Bush Administration are reassuring us that the project is not really star wars as it will be limited and have a defensive aim. They do not often cite Richard Perle's argument that it will be inexpensive; I suppose that depends on how many hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars one regards as cheap. Those people tend not to refer to the fact that other members of the Bush Administration, as well as, very often, the members offering reassurance, have had comments published about full spectrum dominance. It is perfectly clear that if a country believes that it is totally defended, it is far more likely to be belligerent or engage in aggression.
It has been said that Russia is more friendly, but are we helping that situation, when the ABM treaty is to be abandoned rather than further negotiation taking place? Does that strengthen the position of Mr. Putin? China was already intending to expand its nuclear arsenals, but it has made it clear that it will expand them even more as a result. The Foreign Secretary expressed the hope that that would have no effect on the situation in India and Pakistan; I hope that his optimism is justified.
If the major superpower is in flagrant contempt of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, what effect does that have on the chances of proliferation? The Foreign Secretary suggested that perhaps star wars would help non-proliferation:
"Those who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction are not usually irrational".
Star wars would put them off, he suggested. I am sorry, but I seem to remember that the rationale for star wars was that there were some rogue state dictators who were so irrational that they would not be deterred, even by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Further, would they be put off proliferation? The recent national intelligence estimate to the United States Senate is far more correct. It suggests that, because of star wars, and for a range of other reasons, such dictators would be more likely to look at using smuggled weapons because they
"are less expensive than… intercontinental ballistic missiles… can be covertly developed and employed"
and their source can be
"masked in an attempt to evade retaliation."
Such weapons are more accurate and, I would add, have the advantage of total surprise; they can be used without warning.
Multilateral agreements are our best way of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) spoke perceptively about the particular threat that could be posed if nuclear weapons fell into the hands of terrorists; we must prevent that by all means possible. What security can we possibly have even against small nuclear weapons, which could annihilate everything
380
within a radius of half a mile or a mile? We cannot impose a ban on every vehicle coming within a mile of the House or any other place that we want to protect.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Savidge: No, I am sorry; I have been asked to be brief.

The present United States Administration are blocking or breaching nearly all the major treaties that we need for our safety. Of the biological weapons convention they say, "We need it relevant to today rather than yesterday." What on earth do they think other countries have been doing in the past six years of negotiation? The Foreign Secretary suggested that some people caricature members of the American Administration as unilateralists. In September 2000, I attended a Heritage Foundation seminar on star wars, which was addressed by leading right wingers from both sides of the Atlantic, including the Leader of the Opposition. One speaker said:
"They call us unilateralists and isolationists just because we totally oppose arms control, treaties and the UN."
Since that seminar, there has been, I accept, some "new thinking". At the seminar, the republican right talked about a disparate group of people ganging together in "club mad". Now, they are talking about them ganging together in an "axis of evil". It is wrong to try to reduce a complex world to such simplicities. To suggest that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all working together solely to produce weapons in order to attack the United States is to forget that Iraq and Iran built up their weapons largely to fight each other, that both were supplied by the United States among other countries and that North Korea, nasty and revolting as that regime is, has shown a readiness to negotiate.
Similarly, the Republican right seem to suffer amnesia as to exactly who first helped to arm the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I would follow the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about Iraq. If there is no clear connection to 11 September, a unilateral declaration of war or a declaration following consultation of the sort that says, "This is what we are going to do whether you like it or not," by a country that refuses weapons inspections itself would be extremely dangerous. The United Kingdom must not permit mission creep from patrolling no-fly zones to involving ourselves in war in Iraq simply to ingratiate the Republican right rather than to defend British interests.
I have another concern. The campaign against terrorism has been abused as it has become an excuse for increased belligerence in some areas that present the greatest danger of world conflict; I am thinking particularly of Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan. In the former case, it has not helped that Donald Rumsfeld positively encouraged that. I fully appreciate that British Ministers feel that they need to show the highest level of diplomacy in dealing with our American allies. However, it is appalling that the members of the US Defence Department show such an appalling lack of diplomacy.
If I may adapt the terminology used in an interesting article by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, I believe that we must show ourselves staunch allies of the US people, but we must not show ourselves as patsies for the present US Administration. I would repeat the phrase,

381
"Yes, but", that was used by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). The Leader of the Opposition, with his close links to the US right, must not be allowed to lead us into a dutch auction to sell out British interests to the obsessions of the American right. We must not be allowed to let real threats to the British people be increased in order to reduce imagined or remote threats to the United States.
Reference has been made to the increase in the US defence budget, and it has been suggested that we should follow that in Britain and Europe, but there is another consideration. With the US now being in the position of outspending on defence the whole of the rest of NATO plus Russia and China, while spending one of the lowest percentages on diplomacy, aid and reconstruction for other countries, surely it is time that the US considered whether it should be putting more dollars and more effort into the State Department and into aid.
As it says in "A New Chapter", the United States will undoubtedly play a lead role in many things, but it should be under the United Nations, which should lead us. George Bush senior said that he believed in a new world order, but it cannot be a new world order where one country lays down the rules for all the rest while flouting them itself. It is dangerous to assume the supremacy of the west, but it is even more dangerous to have the supremacy of the wild west. For certain states that view the United States as their allies, members of the US Administration should recognise that, although we would not regard it as the rogue States, it is certainly becoming the States of concern.
4.54 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a great honour to take part in this debate after the eloquent Front-Bench speech of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) who are both former Ministers. In the aftermath of Afghanistan, I urge the House to think very carefully about whether we are providing the right kind of forces for the changing world and the many threats that we face.
The European Union is addressing part of that through the European Security and Defence Initiative whereby, in effect, an Army corps is to be projected up to 2,500 miles within 60 days and sustained for a whole year. After looking at the operations in Afghanistan, it is not clear to me whether continental Europeans at any rate have the required capabilities. A huge effort will have to be made to make good large deficiencies which were well summarised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West.
First, there will have to be air superiority, and for that the Eurofighter is crucial. It is way behind schedule and well over budget, but it will have the great advantage of being a single-crew aeroplane so some of the manning problems that the Government face and which have led to the disbanding of 5 Squadron at Coningsby should not be such a difficulty. The whole range of air assets that we require—the airborne standoff radar system, the A400M, the new tankers, the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft mark 2 and a successor to the HC4 Sea Kings for a commando brigade, be that successor either Merlin
382
helicopters or tilt-rotor aeroplanes—are all required in a much shorter time scale than had been originally envisaged. However, they will have the advantage, if the Government provide the necessary funding, of pump-priming the aerospace industry, which is facing a severe downturn in its civil business.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman has gone through a long list of possible procurement items. Is he aware of the thinking behind Congressman Allen's Bill which sought to recoup the research and development costs of missile defence and which applied to any allies to whom this proposed defence concept would be extended? Where does the hon. Gentleman think the money will come from to meet the costs of missile defence, in addition to that long list of armaments that he has read to the House?
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman will note that I did not include any provision for ballistic missile defence. Important as it is, the Government are still evaluating whether we really need to spend significant moneys which developing such projects will require. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating things, but that is not to say that we should not examine them with the greatest care and seriousness.
The Royal Air Force will also need a new training aeroplane—I would suggest a new version of Hawk—as a matter of urgency. Proper training and operational standards constitute a vital aspect of intervention overseas that is all too readily neglected. In that regard I turn to the House of Lords Select Committee report on the tragic accident to the Chinook mark 2 at the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is a former Minister, said that the controversy over the causes of the accident and the decision of Air Marshals Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day to declare the pilots negligent had cast a dark cloud over the reputation of the Ministry of Defence that would inhibit recruiting. I do not believe it.
The Ministry of Defence has been open at all stages about the tragic accident, which occurred in the difficult circumstances of a special mission that flew VIPs to Scotland in an inappropriate aircraft. Comments from another place and even from former ministerial colleagues such as Sir Malcolm Rifkind do not help matters. Lives were tragically lost, and there are lessons to be learned about operational procedures and training. I shall consider some of them in detail.
First, I hope that an aircraft that has not had clearance from the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down will never be allowed to perform such an important mission again. It was a fundamental mistake, and I am astonished that an aircraft with so many operational limitations was allowed to fly on the mission. It is noteworthy that the crew preferred a Chinook mark 1, perhaps partly because they were more familiar with the aircraft, but also because they knew the limitations of the Chinook mark 2, especially in icing conditions.
On 1 June, the day before the accident, the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment suspended test flying of Chinook mark 2s because of problems with flight in icing conditions. Those briefing for the sortie knew that the aircraft would probably have to fly in icing

383
conditions: in cloud, at a temperature below 4 deg C. The aircraft was not cleared for flight in icing conditions below that temperature.
If the eminent officers had to fly to Fort George, it would have been more appropriate and sensible for them to travel to Inverness airport in a Hercules or BAe 146. It is incomprehensible that they all flew in one aircraft, especially one that had so many limitations, in such unsuitable weather. Clearly, the weather was marginal for flight under visual flight rules. I shall say more about that anon.
The Chinook mark 2, especially the digital engine control system, had malfunctioned on several occasions. There had also been various spurious warnings, which made the aircraft notorious. One serious technical problem was reported on form 700 only three weeks before the accident. The history of technical problems should have led briefing officers to choose another aircraft, such as a fixed-wing aeroplane that could fly safely in such weather. The senior officers who permitted the sortie to go ahead in the helicopter, in the weather conditions that I outlined, are reprehensible.
Their Lordships are wise after the event. They can provide a panoply of legal wisdom, but they have not flown helicopters at low level in difficult weather conditions. There were some weather reports along the route; one was provided by a yachtsman. However, the perspective of a yachtsman is different from that of a pilot who flies an aircraft at low level above the sea in marginal visibility at 3 nautical miles a minute.
The Royal Air Force's investigation was thorough and carefully conducted. Appointing Sir John Day, AOC 1 Group, and Sir William Wratten, AOC and Commander-in-Chief Strike Command, to conduct the review was appropriate. As commanding officers, they had to do it. As Sir William pointed out, in some 38 per cent. of cases of Royal Air Force boards of inquiry, air officers commanding have overturned the findings. They were not acting against precedent. I do not therefore believe that they deserve such criticism for their conclusions. They will have understood their overriding responsibility as air officers commanding to ensure the highest standards of flight discipline and airmanship by their crews. Captains of aircraft, regardless of circumstances, mission, the importance of the passengers and the seniority of those who sent them, have a duty to abort the mission or change the flight profile if circumstances dictate it.
It is my belief—particularly after reading the exchange between the two Air Marshals and their Lordships during the cross-examination in the other place—that the Air Marshals were justified in their belief, with the wisdom of hindsight, that the crew, who were flying in very marginal weather with high ground ahead, and with the aircraft slightly off track to the right, probably ought to have aborted, or at least got well clear of the high ground with all speed.
It is sadly clear from the accident inquiry and the inspection of the wreckage that the aeroplane struck the ground while climbing. There had been a rapid flare in the last seconds before impact, which would be consistent with the pilots having seen the high ground just before the crash occurred. The height, speed and configuration of the aeroplane were consistent with a controlled flight into high ground.
384
That is not to say that there was not a malfunction. There could conceivably have been one, but if there was, how were the pilots able to tap in a new way point on the navigational computer less than one nautical mile before the high ground? If there had been a malfunction, they would have been highly preoccupied. A malfunction could conceivably have occurred when the pilots changed course towards the new way point, but such a small change of course would be unlikely to cause erratic behaviour leading to loss of control and a crash into high ground.
I conclude by justifying the decision of the Air Marshals. The House would be wise not to follow the path taken in the other place, or to try to second-guess investigations into military accidents, however tragic the circumstances and however much we sympathise with the grief of the parents of the service men who lost their lives. In an excellent letter to The Times on 9 February, the managing director of British International Helicopters, Mr. Stewart Birt, wrote:
"'Good airmanship', an approach to flying promoted in both military and civil aviation, would have dictated a series of decisions that should have resulted in the aircraft not being at risk of a collision with the ground at the location of the accident or anywhere else."
The Air Marshals had a duty to ensure that the very best standards of airmanship were maintained, particularly for VIP flights in difficult circumstances. I do not think that the Air Marshals were in dereliction of their duty. I support their judgment, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will as well, however tragic the circumstances were.
5.8 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: I shall keep my speech as short as I can; I know that we are short of time. It is a privilege to take part in this debate, as there are a lot of very knowledgeable Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps there has been an occasional hint of disingenuousness, however, in the comments of Opposition Members about the problems of overstretch in the Army. That problem has existed for many years. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said, the figure for people on operational duties is about 27 per cent., which is about the same level that this Government inherited in 1997 from the Tory Government. That is pretty normal. The figure went up during Kosovo, and then went back down. This is still a problem, but it always was and, in many ways, it always will be, because we cannot solve problems of recruitment and retention overnight.
At least one of the Opposition Members present has greater expertise than I have in this matter. They may talk about hugely raising troops' pay, but that will not solve the problem, because troops are not all that pay-sensitive. They expect to be reasonably well paid and well accommodated but raising their pay hugely will not solve the problem of recruitment and retention in the services. The situation has been the same for a while and I suspect that, regrettably, it will be the same for some time to come. So when we talk about future defence policy, we have to assume that we will always have rather fewer soldiers, airmen and women, and sailors than we might wish to have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who is no longer in her place, repeatedly used the term "warmongering", but such language is unhelpful.

385
I appreciate that she does not like the Bush Administration—nor am I a great fan—but President Bush is the elected representative of some 250 million people. They have a right to elect whomever they want. There is a fine line between being anti-American and anti-Bush, and repeated use of the term "warmongering" is unhelpful.
I shall cut to the chase and deal with the discussion document that was issued today. It refers to preventing the conditions that allow international terrorist organizations to operate, and to our providing training assistance to the armed forces of other states, when we have the resources. It is worth noting that the service personnel who are sent on such duties are invariably highly skilled, and are often senior and near the end of their military careers.
In places such as Africa—I was in central Africa a few months ago—military assistance would be invaluable. However, we cannot necessarily provide British military advisory and training teams, either because we do not have enough highly skilled soldiers, or because the political conditions are not quite right. The Foreign Secretary's recent thought that well-regulated private companies could fill that breach is therefore worth extensive consideration.
Sometimes, hon. Members hear the term "mercenaries" used. The Prime Minister used it, presumably on advice, but it is an unfortunate word. It might be in vogue or even correct, but "mercenaries" makes me think of Richard Burton in the 1970s film "The Wild Geese". That is not the kind of role that we are talking about today, and it is an unhelpful image to place in people's minds. Well-regulated private companies could have a role to play in filling that breach. The issue is in the public domain and it needs to be discussed.
The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—he is also not in his place—mentioned the Chinook issue, which has been taken up. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, is to discuss pragmatism in politics on Libby Purves', Radio 4 programme, "Midweek". His definition of pragmatism is likely to be a tiny bit too wide. I was disappointed to discover that, in effect, he blames his officials and officers for his wrong decision, as he now regards it, on the Chinook disaster on the Mull of Kintyre. He told a Scottish Sunday newspaper that, in those circumstances, politicians are at the mercy of their advisers. I believe that he made the correct decision, but to compound his misdemeanour he also cast personal aspersions on current Ministers for not overturning the original decision.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to the speech of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire as honourable, but I am not convinced. Both made fine speeches, but I am not convinced that it is honourable to describe as dishonourable current Ministers who are upholding the decision of a former Secretary of State. It is not right to throw around such a word, and its use was ill-considered.
Mr. Soames: I want to clarify the point. I was not suggesting that the Ministry of Defence or Ministers have acted in any way dishonourably, but it was extremely honourable of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) to speak as he did.
Mr. Joyce: I appreciate the distinction. Perhaps I should clarify my explanation, which may have been a little inelegant. I am slightly concerned about describing as honourable a speech that calls Ministers dishonourable simply for acting correctly. Essentially, that is what the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire did.
Mr. Gray: No, he did not.
Mr. Joyce: Yes, he did. He used that word.
Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is not present, did not in any way imply that Ministers acted dishonourably in not overturning the finding. It is high time that Ministers did overturn it, but there is nothing dishonourable in their not doing so.
Mr. Joyce: The right hon. Gentleman chose to leave the Chamber, but he did use the word "dishonourable". He said that it was dishonourable for Ministers to uphold the current position.
Let me return to Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Sir Malcolm is a capable man. It cannot have escaped his attention that it is at best inconsistent for him to argue on the one hand that present Ministers must take full responsibility for such decisions, which indeed they must, and on the other hand that the principle should not extend to him.
That contortion may be an expression of Sir Malcolm's new doctrine of pragmatism, but I think that the lesson may go deeper. It seems to me that the Conservative party—which, after all, is full of knowledgeable experts—is struggling to come up with a critique of the Government's defence policies with an "oppositionist" resonance. I believe that the Conservatives agree with many of those policies, and are trying desperately to find some reason to oppose them.
In the Chinook case, Sir Malcolm has been pulled a bit too low in terms of the level of debate. There were a couple of glaring factual errors in his newspaper article. He said, for instance, that both the senior officers involved had retired. I do not think that Sir Malcolm himself would have made such a mistake; I suspect that the article was heavily drafted.
It would be a pity if a former Defence Secretary, who must be very frustrated and disappointed by his failure to be re-elected as a Member of Parliament, misjudged the tone and the effect of his own political comments. He may have chosen to continue in this way for all I know, but it would be disappointing to learn that he had.
On a lighter note, let me say a little about Scottish National party policy, as an SNP Member is present. This week the SNP leader attended a demonstration against Trident at Faslane, at which one of his MSPs was arrested while pursuing the party's anti-Trident policy. With astonishing hypocrisy, the SNP's 2001 manifesto stated:
"We should get the benefits of jobs at Rosyth, and we will fight any government proposals to remove refitting work from Scotland".
That is remarkable.
With what would the SNP replace Trident? An assistant defence spokesman—a fine individual, actually; a former lieutenant-colonel who left the Army recently—said this.
Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a question regarding a

387
ruling by Mr. Speaker last week? As I understood it, Mr. Speaker deemed that Members should not question the policy of other parties, but should question only that of the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a much more general debate. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) is entirely in order.
Mr. Joyce: I was about to say—perhaps this is why the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was beginning to get upset—that the SNP has made only one suggestion of a possible replacement for Trident. Two years ago, its assistant spokesperson said:
"It is well worth considering the utility of ballistic missiles … They can carry a wide variety of warheads, including chemical and biological payloads, which can be seen as a cheap alternative to nuclear ones for deterrent purposes".
That is true, I would guess. The spokesperson continued:
"Such attributes have made ballistic missiles the weapon of choice for many third world countries, but the Scottish Defence Force might also find them an important asset in its armoury."
Angus Robertson: Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten us about Scottish Labour policy on the stationing of nuclear weapons in Scotland?
Mr. Joyce: Labour party policy is Labour party policy. There is no different policy, as you should know.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language. He must not use the word "you".
Mr. Joyce: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The SNP says that in an independent Scotland a new Scottish defence force would operate outside NATO, but would be configured for—wait for it—land, sea and air defence of Scotland. It would be capable of overseas operations including rapid deployment, and it would deploy on humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. According to the SNP, that dynamic defence force would consist of whatever Scottish personnel in the current UK armed services chose to transfer. They would be choosing to transfer from one of the finest armed forces in the world to a tin-pot group of people with no experience and no idea about how to run the defence of the country. There is nothing on the SNP website about defence policy. It has removed it because it is deeply embarrassed by it. That is why it has made a token appearance today.
I shall conclude because time is pressing. The document that has been issued today by the Ministry of Defence is a fine document. It raises a number of key issues. It is important that the public debate them in the coming weeks and months
5.20 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: Exactly 12 months ago, the MOD rather bravely published a
388
document entitled, "The Future Strategic Context for Defence". In its introduction, it set out the problems with future thinking of that type:
"We recognise that the paper will contain judgements about the future with which many will disagree. Inevitably events will prove some of our judgements to have been wrong (perhaps this is the only truly certain prediction which we can make).
The nature of such analysis tends not to identify the possibility of 'shocks', low-probability events with a dramatic effect…It is in particular the potential negative impact of shocks that we need to be aware of for purposes of contingency planning. Across a 30 year period we must expect a number of such shocks, even if we can't predict their nature, which have the potential fundamentally to disrupt our carefully laid plans."
Those were indeed prophetic words because, not 30 years hence but only one year hence, here we are discussing primarily the aftermath of a particular shock: the event on 11 September last year.
We had sight for a rather brief period before the commencement of the debate of a new consultation document on how the strategic defence review should be updated in the aftermath of that atrocity—that outrageous mass murder that was nothing short of a declaration of war on the west. The document, which I have seen today for the first time, asks us to make our views known on no fewer than 11 different points. The questions are set out in a useful summary. In the limited time that I intend to confine myself to, I will work my way through as many of them as possible, so I may not give the most comprehensive response to the document that the MOD will receive, but I pride myself on giving the first response to it.
The first question is:
"What should the international community do to address the key underlying causes of international terrorism? What specifically should the UK aim to do?"
There will always be a minority of fanatics in any society, no matter how liberal, civilised and enlightened, who are prepared to engage in totalitarian, murderous activities. The aim of that civilised society must be to keep them away from the levers of power. In particular, the elements that lead to terrorist events are the existence of such fanatics, their access to weapons and the availability to them of a protected base, usually supplied by a host country. When asked what we must do about that, I say in brief that we must identify, infiltrate and monitor such organisations, actively impede their acquisition of weapons and recover those that they have already managed to acquire, and destroy their bases, if necessary overthrowing the regimes that harbour those bases and decline to close them.
The second question is:
"In the medium to long term, what balance should the UK seek to strike between contributing Armed Forces, on the one hand, to help address the symptoms of terrorism and, on the other, to assist in efforts to address the causes of terrorism?"
The symptoms that we may have to face in this country are three. The first, which has not materialised anywhere yet, is small-scale suicide terrorism carried out in large quantities. That was what I feared we would be facing early on when we met on 14 September for an emergency sitting. I contributed to that debate and talked about the grave and severe changes that there would have to be in national life to cope with that sort of threat.
So far, it appears, a few spectaculars rather than a large number of low-level operations have been planned. Large-scale, spectacular attacks on public buildings are

389
the second category about which we must be concerned. The third, which has been alluded to briefly, is mass attacks on the civil population using methods such as those that Soviet spetznaz forces were discovered to have formulated in the early 1970s for use in the event of a war on this country. Hon. Members will remember from their history that that led to the expulsion of more than 100 so-called Soviet diplomats—a coup from which the Soviet intelligence service in this country never recovered.
On assessing the likelihood of such threats being carried out, I am grateful to a friend for drawing my attention to an article in The Mail on Sunday on 3 February, which purported to be an interview with someone out in Lahore near what was alleged to be an al-Qaeda training camp. He claimed to have been born in Britain, to have worked as a doctor in Britain and to retain British nationality.
That person, who used the name Dr. Hakani, said:
"Our work has hardly started. America is still bombing Afghanistan, now we want to bring the war to Britain and America. We are waiting for the right time to return to our sleeper cells in the West and launch full-scale attacks.
Unlike America, we do not want to harm civilians."
Tell that to the bereaved of the World Trade Centre victims. He continued:
"We will be hitting public buildings, government and military targets and leading politicians like Tony Blair. All of us who have fought with Al Qaeda would welcome martyrdom. We can see spectacular results from another September 11. We could hit Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliament."
That threat is obviously worrying, but at least it is small in terms of the numbers involved. If it remains so, we are much more likely to be able to prevent it from being carried out. Let us remember this: at first, we were unsure of the extent to which the UK Muslim community might be a source for terrorists, but it now appears that it is barely a source, as the numbers involved are very small. We must consider using the UK Muslim community, with its consent, as a resource against terrorists.
In that connection, I cite the experience of the Jewish community. Since being allowed to develop at the turn of the last century, which is when my grandparents came here, it has played a full part in the defence of this country. Hon. Members with knowledge of military history will have been reminded of that by the recent death of Tommy Gould VC, the famous submariner.
I have already mentioned the major causes—the coincidence of the existence of terrorists and their ability to get their hands on weapons while enjoying a secure base—and we can no longer ignore the behaviour of dictatorial regimes that are determinedly pursuing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. We must be careful of again burying our heads in the sand and saying, "Saddam Hussein may be acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction for all we know." We do not know whether he has such weapons because he did not allow the inspection demanded by the international community.
We must not say, "We will deal with this as and when it manifests itself." We must not wait; and if regimes are trying to acquire such weapons, it is up to us to stop them doing so, having given them every opportunity to allow the inspections that would show that they are not engaged in such activity. We must not allow the clock to tick indefinitely, as we may eventually find that the ticking is that of a time bomb.
390
The third item on the list to which we have been asked to respond bears on what I have said:
"How should we strike a balance between the defence role in helping to protect the UK, and contributing to operations against international terrorists and other asymmetric threats overseas?"
I believe that that is one of those occasions when the author of the document posing a question has answered it in the body of the document far more effectively than anyone else could. Thus, before I conclude, I wish to put on the record paragraph 27, which appears on page 7 and states:
"it is usually better to seek to engage an enemy at longer range—before they are able to mount an assault on our interests. Not only is this more effective than waiting to be attacked at a point and timing of an enemy's choice, it can have a deterrent effect. We must therefore continue to be ready and willing to deploy significant forces overseas to act against terrorists and those who harbour them."
The document recommends a combination of prevention, deterrence, coercion, disruption and destruction, applicable in different degrees to different targets.
We can try to prevent terrorism by putting pressure on Governments willing to harbour terrorists to ensure that they no longer do so. We can try to deter terrorism by showing that those who wish to harbour terrorists, or to sympathise with them, will meet not a feeble response from the west, but a massive one.
We can try to coerce host regimes to ensure that they do not think that they can wage a sort of proxy warfare. That possibility resembles what happened in the cold war, when people who did not want to fight the west openly would push smaller so-called client states to wage guerrilla war on their behalf. If Afghanistan has taught people of that mindset anything, it should be that that approach will not work in this case.
Disruption can be of only limited effectiveness against specific operations. In the end, terrorism has to be destroyed, without mercy or limit, wherever it rears its head in the world. That is why we must not close our eyes to the fact that ruthless regimes exist that for years have sought to acquire weapons which, even if they did not want to use them themselves, they could pass to other groups that would have no compunction about doing so.
I am not sure that the Conservative Government of the time did themselves any favours when they left Saddam Hussein in power at the end of the Gulf war. The time may be coming to put right that mistake. If it is necessary for us to act, we must do so firmly, and in a way that means that we will never again see anything as terrible as what happened so disastrously on 11 September.
5.33 pm
Mr. John Grogan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). His speech was typical of the high quality and breadth of knowledge that have characterised the debate. The hon. Gentleman clearly had much more to say, and I thank him for his courtesy in stopping when he did and allowing other hon. Members to contribute.
I shall not attempt to emulate the breadth of approach of the hon. Member for New Forest, East, as I intend to focus on one aspect of defence policy—the possible privatisation of the defence fire service. That would threaten the military ethos which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) noted, is so strong and valuable.

391
As many hon. Members have said in this debate, politicians of all hues were quick, after 11 September, to praise the public-spiritedness, self-sacrifice and the ethos of brotherhood and sisterhood of the New York fire service. It is less well known that 100 members of the UK defence fire service volunteered on the day of the disaster to go to New York to help out, if required.
As far as I am aware, there is no threat to privatise the New York fire service, but there is a real threat to privatise our defence fire service. I became aware of that when a constituent of mine, a firefighter at RAF Church Fenton, came to see me last summer. In his hand he held a sheet of paper on which he told me a senior politician was quoted as saying that that was a privatisation too far.
I speculated as to who that senior politician might have been. Several of the contributors to this debate might have made such a remark; I thought that it might have been a Liberal Democrat Member. However, in fact it was the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, who had said that it was a privatisation too far. I respectfully say to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Defence that if it is a privatisation too far for the Conservative party, we need to pause for thought.
How did that situation come about? Three thousand fire service and associated personnel support the armed forces at their bases. The associated staff carry out tasks such as refuelling, or are employed as vehicle technicians and so on. They work at about 100 bases, not only in this country but worldwide. All their jobs are at stake.
On 20 September last year, with impeccable timing, the Ministry of Defence—with no announcement to the House—invited tenders from three preferred bidders for that support work. The contracts could last from between 15 and 20 years and would ultimately be worth up to £4 billion.
During an Adjournment debate, the Minister of State assured me that no decision had been made and that the tender documents are not due to be returned until the end of this month. Apparently, no decision will be made until the end of the year. That is why I was rather surprised to read in RAF News a few weeks ago an advertisement headed "Career Opportunities in Airfield Support". It stated:
"Logicair, a joint venture company formed by Ryder plc and Serco Group plc, is embarking on a major project with great future potential. This will create a dynamic organisation to provide a wide range of airfield support services to the MOD, at over 100 sites world-wide."
The advertisement noted that work was expected to start in early 2004. The closing date for expressions of interest has already passed: it was Friday 25 January.
Clearly, a great deal of forward planning is being carried out by one of the bidders. That company must think that it is in with a good chance of obtaining the contract.
I thought that perhaps the work force were recalcitrant and had been threatening the efficiency or even the security and safety of our armed forces. However, history reveals that the opposite is true. The defence fire service was reviewed for the first time in recent years in the mid-1980s. The Transport and General Workers Union
392
co-operated with the MOD at that time—although it was probably not easy to do that then—and agreed on a common solution: the creation of a single defence fire service for all our armed forces.
That solution was accepted by the trade unions and the MOD, but it was not implemented; there was resistance from some of the defence fire service chiefs. The single service was created in name, but it had three separate managements. There were some common features such as training. The inefficiencies and duplications of effort continued, and in 1995 the then Government began to investigate whether there might be private sector interest. The Labour Government have let that process continue.
It is time to call a halt. We should consider what the trade unions have offered recently. In true stakeholder fashion—something of which new Labour should be proud—they are co-operating with defence service staff. Under the chairmanship of Wing Commander Bob Waldegrave—no less—they have come up with the "Defence Fire Study 2000". That is an in-house project and shows how the service can cut costs by 20 per cent. As there is limited time for the debate, I shall not go into detail. The project has been agreed by the military, the MOD and the TGWU.
It is a real tragedy in terms of best value that the project cannot be implemented at present because of the parallel process of tendering. Public money is being wasted because "Defence Fire Study 2000" is not being implemented. There seems to be a doubt that the public service comparator established by the study will ever be used directly with the private sector, as three elements have been put out to tender.
The first element is procurement—no one would argue about that. The second is the defence fire service and the third is the associated services. It looks as though they will all be lumped together and that our brave firefighters in the defence fire service may not have the chance to compare their work directly with the fire service support that would be provided by the private sector.
The military ethos and the public service ethos are closely allied. The security—the very lives—of our RAF pilots and many others depends on the sense of military ethos or of public service ethos of many of the people who serve in the defence fire service and associated services. It depends on their being prepared to go that extra mile to put aside their own interests. Even as a constituency MP, one is aware that the defence fire service has been prepared to contribute repeatedly to meeting the wider needs of the community—to fill in the gaps of our hard-pressed county fire services. In last year's floods in North Yorkshire, the defence fire service was there time and again. It has been deployed 100 times in the past two years, to places such as Kosovo.
I quote one defence fire service firefighter, Darren Gribben, who recently returned from several months' service in Kosovo:
"I was proud to serve in the hostile conditions of war-torn Pristina, but I would be unsure of returning under a privatised service."
That military ethos applies not only to pilots, but to our defence fire service staff, and I do not believe that it would apply in the same way if they were merely working for a boss who was a contractor to the Ministry of Defence, or perhaps a subcontractor to a contractor.

393
That issue goes to the heart of the great debate about the proper role of the public and the private sectors. If we are prepared to privatise the defence fire service, what are we not prepared to privatise? Are we prepared one day to privatise our fire service generally? That is a fear of the Fire Brigades Union.
On this issue, the Ministry of Defence is playing with fire. It should kick the proposals into touch and accept the 20 per cent. efficiency savings that are on offer from our firefighters.
5.41 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate on a wide range of defence issues. We have discovered a certain amount of common ground on some issues, but a lot less in other areas.
To start with the common ground, all hon. Members who have spoken have expressed our gratitude to the members of the armed forces for the astonishing work that they do on our behalf, not least in the recent operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone and—particularly perhaps—Afghanistan.
Several hon. Members have expressed concern about the Government's plans for the Territorial Army and a desire to ensure that the Territorial Army retains a flexible role; that it is able to support our troops in a variety of ways; and that it does not simply become a home guard that is relegated to lower-level and domestic duties.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), supported by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), expressed concern about the dangers of ending up with a two-tier system in our armed forces, in which some units are regularly used for high-level and high-priority activities while other regiments are left on lower-level duties. That would be a great pity, especially as all units in our armed forces are trained to an extremely high level.
We found less common ground on other issues. The Chinook crash was discussed eloquently by several hon. Members with great experience in the matter, and I do not want to cover that ground in detail. I would only say that the fact that Members with as much experience as the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) have very considerable concerns about this matter, adding their voices to the questions raised by the House of Lords report, suggests to Liberal Democrat Members that it is time to have the matter independently reviewed so that we may get as close as possible to the truth of what happened in that tragic accident.
The second issue on which there has perhaps been less agreement is funding, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and by the Chairman of Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I fear that the Chairman set a high hurdle for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in terms of the up and coming spending round when he said that he thought that the Secretary of State should seek to achieve an increase of half a percentage point in the share of national income that goes into defence; that would involve an increase of £4 to £5 billion a year. If the Chairman of the Defence Committee is setting that hurdle for the Secretary of State, he may be disappointed by the outcome of the spending review. There will be a great deal of competition for resources, especially as
394
funding for health, education and transport is growing above the rate of inflation. That puts pressure on many other sectors, including defence and social security, to grow at less than the growth rate of the economy so that not too much upward pressure is placed on the tax burden.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex was closer to the likely outcome when he referred to an increase of £500 million a year over and above inflation. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, that would be a 2 per cent. real increase each year. The Secretary of State will need to deploy a robust set of arguments in the face of Treasury scepticism if he is to gain the share of the cake that defence should be allocated. Not all his arguments should lean too heavily on the events of 11 September, however. As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, the nature of those events was such that they would not necessarily have been prevented by additional expenditure on the armed forces. It is significant that the attack took place in the country that dedicates the largest share of gross domestic product to national defence. The nature of the threats that we now face might be better dealt with by expenditure that is targeted into intelligence, for instance, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggested.
If there is an argument for increasing expenditure on the armed forces which goes beyond the pay and cost pressures, it is the low share of GDP that Europe invests in defence compared with the US, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex explained. Although many Conservative Members expressed a strong solidarity with America, I am pleased that some of them share the concern that we should not be too dependent on it or expect it to do all our work for us. That is one argument that the Secretary of State should deploy.
Another argument is that although there is no great need for defence expenditure to respond to the specific events of 11 September, they highlight what is important. We need to take out insurance against a series of risks. If the events of 11 September tell us anything, it is that there is a huge uncertainty about the risks that we face. Our armed forces need to be flexible enough to respond to those different risks, many of which we cannot anticipate now. We need to be aware of the fact that the military responds to the latest war and the latest risks, but we need to consider our ability to respond to new risks.
Despite the Secretary of State's best efforts, if he does not obtain the full funding that he requires from the Chancellor, he will have to consider what hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, said about how we deploy the existing budget between competing uses. With today's news of the increase in the cost of Eurofighter, I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he can reduce some of those cost pressures and their effect on other aspects of the defence budget, including procurement. Are the Government thinking of reducing the number of Eurofighters that we purchase to reduce some of the pressure on the defence budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford suggested?
I agree with what the hon. Member for Halifax said about having a wider debate on national missile defence. Many of my hon. Friends who would in no way associate themselves with the arguments for unilateral nuclear disarmament in the early 1980s are none the less concerned about the NMD programme and the value for money that we may or may not derive from it. Inevitably, if we decide to go along with that programme, there will

395
be a very significant impact on our defence budget and costs, as other hon. Members have suggested. If only for that reason, we ought to have an early opportunity to debate in detail the pros and cons of becoming involved in this very important initiative with which President Bush wishes to proceed, and which will have major implications for US defence expenditure.
I wish to keep my comments as brief as possible because I am aware of the pressure of time. I wish the Secretary of State good luck, especially in the next week or so, in his battles with the Treasury over the comprehensive spending review, whose outcome will be crucial to all the issues that we have debated today. I hope that the resources that the right hon. Gentleman is able to secure will allow our armed forces to continue to do the really superb work that they have done in recent years and to complete their role not only in securing the British national defence interest but in engaging in humanitarian operations such as those in Sierra Leone, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, have had such a dramatic effect on the quality of life and security of people in countries beyond our own.
5.51 pm
David Wright: It is a privilege to be able to contribute to the debate. In particular, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), which I thoroughly enjoyed. He has a knowledgeable perspective on such issues; his remarks were often humorous; and he made an important contribution. I concur with what he said about the way that the House was moved by the statement that the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) made in his opening remarks. I may not agree with every part of his speech, but it takes courage to make such a statement in the Chamber, and I pay tribute to him.
This important debate has been wide ranging—from the Chinook crash to the deployment of front-line troops. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has raised the issue of MOD fire services and I should like to broaden the debate even further to defence logistics. Often, defence debates focus on regiments such as the Parachute Regiment or the Royal Marines, and the superb job that they do. I should like to associate myself with the comments that other hon. Members have made about those forces. They do a fantastic job for our country, but we have to remember that their effectiveness in the field is very much dependent on defence logistics.
My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) have long-standing traditions of defence logistics work. My constituency is well known in military circles as an effective location for the distribution of defence hardware, and the Equipment Support, Provision and Procurement Authority—otherwise known as ESPPA—is located there. My hon. Friend's constituency, which adjoins mine, contains the defence storage and distribution depot and ABRO, which was formerly called the Army base repair organisation, both of which are located at Donnington.
The significance of defence logistics to our national economy must not be forgotten. Some 31,800 people are employed in the United Kingdom on defence logistics work, 2,500 of them in Telford. It is a major employment
396
asset for the west midlands economy. At times of conflict, those involved have responded superbly in the service of our country, from the Falklands war in the early 1980s to the current situation in which we find ourselves in Afghanistan. They do a tremendous job in ensuring that our armed forces are supported effectively in the field. I pay tribute to all the members of staff who work in those organisations.
The strategic defence review's effect on defence logistics will have a significant impact on my constituency. The principles of the strategic defence review and defence logistics policy are outlined in the MOD publication "Defence Policy 2001", from which I shall quote briefly. It states:
"We need to deliver a step change in performance in all areas of logistics to deliver the Armed Forces' support and sustainability needs. In particular we need to optimise our stocks and fixed assets. This will require radical improvements in repair and maintenance, the exploitation of e-commerce, the creation of an integrated and responsive support chain effective across organisational boundaries and improved relationships with industry."
We can all sign up to that broad policy objective. Certainly, the people who work in defence logistics in Telford and The Wrekin have responded effectively to that agenda. ESPPA has introduced quality systems founded on ISO 9002. It is an exemplary organisation in terms of information technology provision. It has Investors in People status and it adds significant value to the work of the MOD. Donnington defence storage and distribution has merged with facilities at Stafford. Our armed forces are supported by some of the most technologically advanced warehousing in the western world.
ABRO at Donnington is moving towards a trading fund situation—it vests as a trading fund on 2 April. It uses partnering as a means of securing new materials and assets for the MOD and it uses some of the financial freedoms introduced by this Government to secure business fund reinvestment. A positive set of actions have therefore been taken in relation to the defence review agenda.
However, I urge caution on the Government. Since I became a Member of Parliament in June last year, I have already received four significant letters from the MOD about the restructuring and reorganisation of defence logistics. Constant upheaval and uncertainty in relation to defence logistics activity affects the morale of the people involved. That is a major concern in Telford and The Wrekin. The MOD publication "Defence Policy 2001" highlights the fact that
"financial rewards, working conditions, training and career prospects which are sufficient to attract and retain innovative individuals with the skills we need"
are important to staff morale and recruitment in the MOD. The constant concern and upheaval of ongoing review does nothing to strengthen the morale of local people.
People in Telford and The Wrekin have the necessary skills and have proved, through the work that has been done in the organisations that I have mentioned, that they can build on those skills. We should let them flourish as far as possible. It is as important to support defence logistics as it is to support our front-line forces. Without an effective service in logistics, our armed forces cannot effectively serve the interests of this country with our partners.

397
Defence logistics also have a positive impact on our economy. We need to preserve the geographical spread of MOD interests throughout the UK. In security terms, that is a good principle anyway, but we must use the MOD to enhance local economies wherever we can.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we need to ensure a defence presence throughout the country. However, does he agree that we must ensure that support units serve front-line units where they are? In particular, does he agree that defence medical services must support front-line units in Wiltshire and Hampshire rather than in Birmingham?
David Wright: I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard that comment. The hon. Gentleman clearly has more experience of those services than I do. I am talking about services provided directly by people in Telford and The Wrekin. On the basis of my visits to those establishments, I can report that the service is superb and of a high quality. People in Telford can demonstrate that such services can be delivered from across the UK in support of our armed forces.
I pay tribute once again to those who work in defence logistics. We must respect the commitment and flexibility shown by them and their trade union representatives, whom I have met regularly in recent months. We must protect their jobs and praise the work that they do in support of our front-line armed forces.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At business questions today, the House heard the Leader of the House, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), issue an emphatic denial in respect of today's newspaper stories about Jo Moore and an e-mail that passed between Mr. Sixsmith and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Leader of the House was totally emphatic on that point.
It is becoming clear from the Downing street 4 o'clock Lobby briefing that an e-mail does in fact exist. Those providing the briefing refuse to deny that the e-mail was copied to Jo Moore, or to release the wording of the e-mail. The Press Association is now reporting that this morning's stories are, in all important respects, accurate.
It is disgraceful that the media should have heard about the retraction before the House. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had any information that the Leader of the House is to come here to put the record straight?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have received no information from the Leader of the House or any other Minister that they are about to come here.
6.1 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: As we debate defence here tonight, we are extremely conscious that our forces are on active service almost all round the world. Great tributes have been paid to them, and I associate myself with those tributes, which apply as much to those working in supply organisations as to those members of the Parachute Regiment, whose regimental headquarters remains in Aldershot.
398
I am bound to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others who have said that there is no point in other units being trained up to war fighting levels only to be stood down in favour of one or two units that are deployed every time. I hope that the Secretary of State has taken that important point on board.
I shall raise two specific issues: missile defence and expenditure. My remarks about both are informed in large measure by my visit to Washington last week. The Defence Committee spent the entire week in end-to-end meetings with officials and others in Washington.
First, I should like to say to the Secretary of State that everywhere we went, it was made absolutely explicit that the United States Administration greatly appreciate the support of the United Kingdom and its Government and the extraordinary qualities of our armed forces, who are in action and who have supported the United States' activities in Afghanistan. The united stand of the House and the support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister standing shoulder to shoulder with our American partners have done the United Kingdom enormous good. I welcome that.
We Members of Parliament have to be clear that, whatever our individual views, the United States Administration are absolutely determined to proceed with missile defence. They greatly resent the suggestion that it is "star wars"—an expression that has been used repeatedly this afternoon. They are emphatic that it is neither "star wars" nor "national missile defence". They have changed the name of their organisation from the national missile defence organisation to the ballistic missile defence organisation, to make the point that they are not in the business of throwing up a curtain that protects the United States alone, as foreshadowed by the "star wars" concept of the 1980s.
It will be unfortunate if we fail to understand the United States' belief that it faces a real threat to its homeland, either from the axis of evil nations, or from other nations, or from terrorist organisations which might at some point in the relatively near future become capable of deploying missiles that could inflict damage on the United States. That is why the Americans are prepared to invest no less than $7.8 billion—£5 billion—next year in research to produce an answer to that problem.
If a missile is deployed, there are three stages at which it can be taken out: the launch phase, the mid-course phase and the terminal phase. That takes considerable technological achievement, and instead of criticising the United States, we should welcome the fact that a country that is richer than us is prepared to invest the necessary money.
It is significant that in the document that the Government published a year ago, Defence Policy 2000, they said:
"We assess that, for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that a direct threat to the UK could re-emerge on a scale sufficient to threaten our strategic security, whether through conventional means or weapons of mass destruction."

399
Of course, that has now changed because in the new document, which we received only this morning, the Government make a few tentative assumptions, one of which is that
"the psychological threshold of shock may have been raised and other terrorists or possibly rogue states may in future seek to emulate the massive effect of the 11 September attacks. This might mean attempts to acquire and use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear devices".
In light of the Government's acknowledgement that we face such a threat, I must ask why there is so much criticism of the United States for taking action, putting its dollars where its mouth is and trying to identify technical means by which that threat can be countered. What action are the British Government taking? On Monday, the Secretary of State, in answer to one of his colleagues, made it clear that this is not a national missile defence system designed only for the United States. He said:
"President Bush has made it clear, for example, that he wants the United States friends and allies to be protected against the potential ballistic missile threat."—[Official Report, 11 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 9.]
Everywhere we went in Washington we heard the message that this system is not available only to the United States; it would like to be able to protect its friends and allies as well.
The Government might take a lead from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who alerted the nation to the threat at least a year ago and suggested that we should co-operate with the United States to try to eliminate it. We face that threat more imminently than does the United States. Countries such as Iran, Iraq and Libya are closer to us than they are to the US, and it is incumbent on the Government to enable us to defend ourselves if those states develop the potential to hit this country,
When we met Mark Grossman, the Under-Secretary of State at the State Department who is responsible for political affairs, he said that the US would welcome support from its NATO allies. I understand that Italy and the Netherlands have said that they would like to support the United States. What, then, are the British Government doing? They must give us an answer.
My second point relates to expenditure. I draw to the attention of the House the penultimate paragraph of today's report which refers to
"significant additional investment of £100 million to meet urgent operational requirements".
That is not additional investment. When the Secretary of State came to the Defence Committee in November, he made it clear that that £100 million is to meet the cost of prosecuting the war and is different from investment; it is not new money.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the many representations that have been made, because if we are to be able to meet the threat posed by terrorists and rogue states that can get their hands on intercontinental ballistic missiles, there will have to be significant increases in expenditure. The people of Britain have seen the damage that can be inflicted by those with a desire to inflict casualties on western countries; if they are told that insuring against such an eventuality carries a cost, I believe that they will he prepared to wear it.
400
I shall end with an ancillary point about additional expenditure. The Minister recently wrote to me about project Connaght Allenby in Aldershot. I wholly oppose any policy by Her Majesty's Government to sell off large tracts of land in the south to raise money to invest elsewhere, which would be at the expense of the garrison at Aldershot, a long-established garrison town with facilities for the armed forces, especially the Army, and a culture that welcomes the forces. I urge the Government not to sell off all that land to raise money for the Treasury, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, accounts more to Moscow than it does to the Ministry of Defence. Will they ensure that they do not divert such funding, which should be properly raised by taxation? I shall conclude on that note, and hope that the Minister will explain how those increases will be funded.
6.11 pm
Angus Robertson: May I praise the brevity of many Members who have spoken? I, too, shall try to be as brief as possible, as I know that a number of other Members wish to speak.
I shall perhaps surprise the Minister by whole heartedly welcoming the discussion document, the announcement of a series of debates on the issues, which are important and deserve regular examination, and the detail of the Government's report. Like many others, I shall take the opportunity to praise our service personnel from Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, especially those stationed in my Moray constituency, which has two of the largest RAF bases in the UK—RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss. It will be no surprise to the Minister if I reiterate briefly the distinction that differentiates the defence policy of the Scottish National party from that of other parties in the House. We believe that defence policy should have a democratic basis. If we send someone into conflict, possibly to die for their country, that decision should be taken in the nation's Parliament which, for the SNP, is the Scottish Parliament. However, I do not expect the Minister to agree.
Moving on to the report, I support the emphasis on European security and defence policy and its headline goals, which are of great importance in the coming year. My party and I support that, as we do the partnership for peace programme. Sadly, the report omits mention of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which has an important part to play. That may be my oversight, but it does not appear to be mentioned, and no one else has talked about that important organisation today. It is an important element of peace policy in Europe. It is the only organisation on the continent that reaches as far as central Asia.
I shall not dwell on the partisan matters raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). I was going to make the point that there is not a single Scottish Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber, but the hon. Gentleman has returned in time for the start of my speech. I congratulate him and thank him for making the effort. I wish to make specific points, first, about the Territorial Army, then about the defence fire service, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan).
The Minister will be aware that the SNP has consistently argued, since before publication of the strategic defence review, that there should not be a

401
diminution of the Territorial Army. At about the time that the review was published, George Robertson said:
"The TA should no longer be a force of last resort, held against a major threat…That means a shift in emphasis away from roles such as home defence."
After the events of 11 September, which Lord Robertson certainly could not have foreseen, it is absolutely right that the Territorial Army and other reserve forces should become more central to Government defence planning.
A number of issues need to be raised with regard to the Territorial Army. First, the fact that there are too few TA numbers means that the burden of disruption caused by TA obligations falls on a smaller number of businesses that have to release their staff, and not every business is prepared to do that. That is an important issue in respect of any rise in TA numbers. TA personnel who volunteer to reinforce the regulars in peacetime do not have the right to return to their jobs on return from their duties. That is only possible when they are mobilised, and it contrasts with the conditions of the National Guard in the United States.
Military observers in Scotland believe that there are simply too few trained personnel among the 4,500 TA credibly to defend key points. Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient to cover shifts at the gates or patrol inside installations? Perhaps he can say how many platoons were needed in the cold war for key point defence. How many key points are there in Scotland? I would not expect the Minister to name them; the numbers would suffice. It is important that we have an informed debate on the role of the Territorial Army as part of the ongoing consultation.
The SNP's position since 1996 is that there should be up to 8,000 part-time volunteer reservists in Scotland. That would thicken the volunteer reserve footprint in Scotland and bring more people into the TA and the reserve forces of the other services. It would create more trained personnel, spread more widely the burden on businesses that have part-time volunteers on their staff and encourage the recruitment of regular forces. In that respect, I fully support any efforts that the Government make in reaching that number.
Mindful of the time, I turn to the fire services at RAF bases, which, since my election in June, has been overwhelmingly the largest issue brought to me by service personnel from both bases. Only a few weeks ago there was a lobby of Parliament by more than 50 fire officers from throughout the United Kingdom, and those who travelled furthest of all came from RAF Lossiemouth in my constituency. The issue has been fully outlined by the hon. Member for Selby to whom I pay tribute for his work on this. I also thank hon. Members from both sides of the House who have signed early-day motion 853 on the subject and urge others to do so.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. I have asked them before, but received no answers. They concern RAF Lossiemouth where morale among staff is at rock bottom. They have raised the matter with me, with the Transport and General Workers Union and the Moray Trades Council and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond now. They are concerned about back-fill—the ability to bring in extra firefighters to cover extra changes in the category of planes that use those bases. As the Minister will be aware, in general Tornados operate from RAF Lossiemouth but an increasing number of VC10s
402
and Tristars use it as well. Those planes are large and have heavy fuel loads and their status for firefighting goes from category 4 to category 7. The base also has squadrons on detachment and there is flying every day. Will the Minister confirm that squads at RAF Lossiemouth will be reduced from seven to six? I should be keen to hear his views on how airfield commitments can be met with fewer men. Morale is at rock bottom. Is the Minister not worried about the safety implications of that?
Specific measures were incorporated into the minutes of the local works Whitley, which met on 28 September 2001. It noted that RAF Lossiemouth is to be recategorised as a category 3 station and that its four firefighter crews will be
"reduced from 7 to 6 …However, the Command Fire Officer at the time—who is named in the report—stated in writing that those figures did not include crew commanders, only the operational firefighters."
The report adds that the person in question has, however,
"now retired and Command Fire has not subsequently substantiated his statement. It transpires that the revised manning figures do include crew commanders and are now enshrined in Joint Services Publication 426."
It adds:
"the Trade Union side wished to record its dissent over the deceitful and underhanded way in which this issue has been handled."
This is matter of supreme interest to people at RAF Lossiemouth.
On 13 November 2001, the Minister said to me:
"I will deal with the questions posed by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) in writing, because sufficient time is not available."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 13 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 234WH.]
He now has the time, and I should be grateful for the answers—if not when he sums up, in writing within the next few weeks.
6.21 pm
Patrick Mercer: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I want to talk about morale—a crucial element of fighting power that is intangible but makes our soldiers, sailors and airmen do what they do so well.
The problems of a two-tier army may be just as applicable to a two-tier navy and a two-tier air force, but they are probably most obvious in the Army, and they are getting worse. I shall give the views of a company sergeant major of a Warrior battalion in Tidworth. The battalion has become part of the joint rapid reaction force and was alerted for action at short notice as its spearhead battalion. That means that, other than troops actually deployed on operations, no battalion anywhere else in the Army is on shorter notice to move. The sergeant major brought his company on parade, made sure that every last gaiter button was ready and every bootlace was tied, then said, "Boys, we are the leading edge—the spearhead—of the JRRF. That means we're going absolutely nowhere." In other words, the problem is that, as far as the troops are concerned, unless they are wearing a red hat or a green hat, they ain't moving.
In fact, that is not true. For example, 16 Air Assault Brigade contains elements of two fine battalions—the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Royal Gurkha Rifles. The Commando Brigade contains men of the Royal Artillery, the Royal Signals, the Royal Engineers,

403
and so on. It is a growing list. Too many of the line infantry see themselves as underemployed and undervalued. Will the Minister address that?
I ask the Minister carefully to consider the plans for 2 and 52 Brigades. I applaud the idea of creating infantry brigades, but they must be given organic sappers, gunners, signals and a headquarters if they are to become proper brigades. At the moment, they are only training brigades. Although the proposals are good for the morale of the battalions inside those brigades, they do not deal with the problem.
In my opinion—and, I humbly add, my experience—the factor that erodes morale more than anything else is under-recruiting and undermanning. Earlier this week, in Defence questions, the Minister said:
"The figure for the Army is more than 100,000, which we hope to raise to 103,000 or 104,000 by 2005."
The add-back to the strategic defence review makes it 108,000. We now face the prospect of not approaching that figure until 2005. Why is manning so chronically unsatisfactory?
The Minister went on to say:
"As for recruitment, I could spend the next hour describing in detail all the ways in which we have tried to tackle it…I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should begin to appreciate the complexities and difficulties, and support the Government's initiatives, rather than trying to talk down the armed forces."—[Official Report, 11 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 14–20.]
I am not trying to talk down the armed forces at all. The fact remains, however, that the examples are legion. The Omagh Battalion, which is the north-western battalion in Northern Ireland, as the Minister will appreciate, is a difficult and tough two-year posting. The battalions very rarely keep their numbers up to strength during that time; their numbers are always eroded.
The 1st Battalion, the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire has just deployed with one quarter of its combat power under strength. It is completely lacking one whole company. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I appear to be teaching him to suck eggs when I tell him that the battalion has four operational tasks to do, for which it needs four companies; it has only three. What is the solution? A unit from the famous 16 Air Assault Brigade, a battalion of the Parachute Regiment, has to provide a company to make the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire up to strength. Not only do we have an ineffective battalion, but the precious resource of troops trained for airborne operations—part of 16 Air Assault Brigade—is being diverted towards relatively routine duties in Northern Ireland. It is extremely difficult for the commanding officer of that battalion to make it work properly and to maintain morale.
I tabled a written question about the number of troops leaving the Army, compared with the number entering it. The answer that I received was that the number entering is slightly higher than the number leaving. That is absolutely right, but those numbers do not shed the correct light on the problem. I spoke recently to the commanding officer of an Army training regiment. He expects to lose 20 per cent. of his recruits during phase one training. I do not take issue with that; it is probably reasonable, although unfortunate. During phase two training, he expects to lose a further 10 per cent.
404
We need to look at the numbers joining the battalions, and at the numbers leaving them. The former is chronically lower than the latter. There are one or two exceptions to that rule, however: the Light Dragoons, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, the Sherwood Foresters and, most remarkably of all, the Coldstream Guards. Those battalions and regiments are consistently fully manned, or even over-manned. How do they do it?
The answer is that they conduct their own recruiting operations, because the resources of the recruiting group are seen to be inadequate. Soldiers are, therefore, mis-employed in what the Army refers to as the black economy. Mortarmen, machine-gunners and snipers are taken away from their tasks with their battalions and paid for, clothed, equipped and fed by their commanding officers while being deployed to Middlesbrough, Birkenhead or Clitheroe, for example, where they are told to go out and get recruits. If we ask how many men and women are recruited by regimental recruiting parties on the so-called black economy, and how many are recruited by the recruiting group, we are told that the figures are impossible to assess.
I maintain that that is the way to recruit successfully. It is not fussy or sophisticated, but it works, as it has worked down the centuries. I recommend that the Minister looks closely at this matter, and takes a spyglass to the operations of the recruiting group and to the budgets allocated to it. Interestingly, commanding officers of territorial battalions are given responsibility for their own recruiting. That would not wholly work in the regular Army, but there is merit in looking to see how it is done, and how those particular regiments approach the problem and—despite the economic climate—come out with the right answer time and again.
The Sherwood Foresters, based in Chester, will be 20 men over strength in six weeks' time. They have been told, "Do not recruit any more. You are over-bearing on salaries too much, so pack in your recruiting efforts." Why? Where is the logic? Surely, if they are recruiting, they should be allowed to do so. It is not a cap badge issue, as cap badges can be used elsewhere.
I have said enough and I am grateful to the House for its tolerance. It need not be reminded, I hope, of my undying admiration for our armed forces, but we are selling them short by treating them unfairly. Soldiers, sailors and airmen want to fight and to go on operations, and such opportunities should be given to them all. If units are to be effective, they need to be fully manned and morale must be kept high.
6.30 pm
Mr. James Gray: I begin by paying tribute to the small but dedicated band of defence followers who have stayed until this late hour on a Thursday before a recess to discuss the important business before us. I refer to Members on both sides of the House, of course, but particularly to those on the Conservative Benches. Our interest in defence is well known and goes back a very long way indeed.
It has been a surprisingly worthwhile and heavyweight debate. I say "surprisingly" not to cast aspersions on the quality of any contribution from either side of the House, but because we made surprisingly good soup from the remarkably thin gruel that the Government served today

405
in the form of the Green Paper. It amounts to very little and is unexpectedly thin, considering the heavyweight briefing of newspapers, television and radio in the past two or three weeks. Such briefing led us to believe that the Green Paper would contain all manner of interesting announcements about the Territorial Army. The reality is that there is a tiny paragraph on that subject that amounts to very little.
We were told that the Green Paper would mention special forces, but it says nothing, and that it would discuss various aspects of defence, but such references amount to questions rather than answers. It is a thin document, but it has taken five months since 11 September for it to appear. It bears striking similarities to the speech made in November by the Secretary of State for Defence at King's college, and I suspect that today's speech was the same one, given that he appeared to be reading large portions of the Green Paper verbatim. It is disappointing and surprising that, five months after the terrible events in New York, the Government's thinking has moved no further forward than the Green Paper suggests.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that there will be three further debates on defence issues and various other such topics, hopefully before the summer. I hope that we have more substantive issues to discuss by that time. Members on both sides of the House have struggled to find anything to say today on the Green Paper. There have been many interesting discussions on Chinooks and other such matters, but the Green Paper itself has not amounted to much.
In that context, I pay particular tribute to the Defence Committee, to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who makes a huge contribution to defence matters, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is vice-chairman of the Committee and who speaks with great knowledge. They make a great contribution to defence thinking, and their report, which immediately followed the strategic defence review, seems a great deal weightier than the flimsy Green Paper.
I want to make one or two suggestions to the Minister, and to the Secretary of State in his absence—it is a shame that he was unable to stay for the rest of the debate—that they might consider before those more substantive debates. The first suggestion concerns the foreign policy baseline. The original strategic defence review made a reasonable stab at analysing our position on global defence requirements. Presumably, some foreign policy baseline underpins the new, post-11 September chapter.
However, the truth is that the baseline was not explained to us at the time of the strategic defence review, and it has not been explained to us today. We have not been told—except through speeches and so on—what the Government's foreign policy ambitions are. If we do not know what the job is, how can we assess whether the tools that the Government are giving our armed forces are suitable? I therefore call on the Government to publish the original baseline, and to update it and make it public. There is no reason why the people of Great Britain should not know what the Government's ambitions are in the world. Let the Secretary of State announce the foreign policy baseline and its update.
Of course, all that we get on that front is the Prime Minister rushing around the world grandstanding on a variety of important issues, with comments such as,
406
"We must do something about it." He does that all the time, and most memorably in that foolishly grandiose speech at last year's Labour party conference. I recall his announcing, among other things, his intention of intervening in both Rwanda and the Congo.
If anything of the sort is likely—if that is indeed what the Labour party believes we should be doing in the world—the Prime Minister will have to discuss it with his Foreign Secretary, who seems to be rather out of the loop of late. Sadly, he did not manage to go to Africa with the Prime Minister last week. The Prime Minister will also have to discuss it with his Defence Secretary, who seems to have been ineffectual when it came to delivering the "overstretch" message at the door of No. 10. Above all, he must discuss it with his Chancellor, who will have to fork out for the realisation of his global ambitions.
I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has at last returned. My second question is this: will he guarantee that he will properly fund the new chapter of the SDR? Most people agree that the original SDR was not at all well funded.
I must tell the Secretary of State that the runes in the papers are not at all encouraging. Over the past 12 months, it has been reported that the Treasury is demanding some £1.5 billion of defence cuts. Indeed, the Secretary of State came close to admitting as much in an interview with The Daily Telegraph last week. He said:
"If we are going to engage more fully in the world"—
presumably along the lines described by the Prime Minister—
"then obviously we will need the resources to achieve that".
He said in the same interview—or, at least, implied—that the defence budget was under threat. According to the newspaper,
"senior defence sources said they were in the middle of a 'battle royal' with the Treasury which was questioning additional costs for operations in Afghanistan."
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how confident he is of persuading his Treasury colleagues that the proposals in the new chapter, and the defence changes necessitated by 11 September, should be properly funded. Will he give us an absolute assurance of decent funding? That did not happen after the SDR.
If the Green Paper is not properly funded, it will be like so much that the Labour party does—all smoke and mirrors. The Government seem to think that saying something is just as good as doing it. We do not want more questions, more national debate, and more mucking around with fancy bits of paper; we want to know what resources they will give our excellent defence forces to enable them to perform the ever more grandiose tasks with which, apparently, they are about to be confronted.
The main news that has been trailed this week—for instance, by the Secretary of State on the radio this morning—relates to changes in the Territorial Army. I declare an interest here: I served for seven years in the Honourable Artillery Company, and was recently appointed to the Court of Assistants.
In a strange intervention, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) accused my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) of speaking out of turn because he was paid by the Territorial Army. He also accused my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who spoke about the

407
Chinook issue, of being dishonourable in some way. I did not entirely understand that, especially as it came from a gentleman who, I gather, was dismissed from the Army after a court martial. I thought it rather strange that he should call the honour of others into question.
Mr. Joyce: That is not the way it was. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what I said about the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot); I suggest that he read Hansard.
In a debate some years ago, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) criticised me for being publicly political while serving as an officer. I accept that that was wrong at the time. He also stressed that there was effectively one Army—that the TA and the regular Army were one and the same. I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman today; I was drawing attention to an inconsistency.
Mr. Gray: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just apologised to both my colleagues, whom, in my view, he slandered. If so, I gladly accept his apology; if not, I think that he should have apologised.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Let me try to defend the background of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). I do not know all the details, but an interesting issue has been raised. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no members of the armed forces should participate in any political discussion? I should be interested to learn his point of view, and the sources of some of his information. Should they all be court martialled?
Mr. Gray: I was making no such suggestion. I was trying to defend two of my colleagues whom the hon. Member for Falkirk, West had chosen to have a go at. That struck me as unreasonable, especially as his background in the armed forces is, to say the least, questionable. I leave it at that: I cast no aspersions on him. The way in which he behaved during his last couple of years in the Army is a strange old business, but that is not what today's debate is about. No doubt he will want to clear his name, and if I have misunderstood, I shall be the first to apologise, but my understanding is that he should be careful about throwing accusations across the Floor of the House.
The main thing that the Secretary of State talked about on the radio this morning was the TA. I know that the TA will diligently carry out whatever task he may throw at it. He says that the TA will guard key points. He must make it plain that it will not just guard key points but perform the tasks that it is already performing. Ten per cent. of troops in the Balkans are from the TA, which is also active in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. If guarding key points is an additional duty, what extra resources will he give the TA?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who was a distinguished Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He made particularly useful comments about the regular and Territorial Army. I take issue with him on just one point. He described himself as a sycophantic, running-dog lackey of the Government. That rang no bells with me. He makes a great contribution to defence.
408
The Green Paper hardly even mentioned the Secretary of State's plans with regard to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force; there seems to be a large gap in the middle of it. I pose a few questions that he may like eventually to publish.
The Green Paper makes great play of defending homeland waters and airspace. I shall not intrude on the private grief raised by the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), all of whom seem reluctant to support the Secretary of State's approach to ballistic missile defence, but there is a curiosity closer to home. The Green Paper says:
"following 11 September, elements of the Armed Forces, including air defence fighters, were placed at increased readiness. They have been scrambled to monitor suspect aircraft on more than one occasion."
It says on page 5 that it is important to defend territorial waters and territorial airspace. In that case, will the Secretary of State confirm why he chose to take the opportunity to stand down 5 Tornado squadron, which I understand was responsible for the defence of London? That decision seems to conflict with what he says in the Green Paper.
Will the Secretary of State give some answers on the Royal Navy? Will he confirm how many type 45 destroyers he is ordering and when the first will be commissioned? The MOD constantly refers to "up to 12" but does he accept that if the Royal Navy is to continue its capability, it must be 12, not up to 12, ships? When will the first steel be cut on the first ship, and will she be delivered before 2008? Those are key questions that he needs to answer. It appears that the Navy will take delivery of a type 45 destroyer every six months from 2008 to 2014. Is BAE Barrow capable of delivering that?
The same applies to the number of frigates and destroyers, which seems significantly lower than that which Ministers have talked about. I think that I am right in saying that last year only 20 were available for use. Thirteen were on deployment. That means that there is no scope for royal naval deployments elsewhere. UK waters are not being patrolled by the Royal Navy at all. Since November 2001, for the first time ever, no royal naval ship has been deployed in the Caribbean.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has reconfirmed the carriers, but when does he intend to announce the decision on the planes that will be on them? Will he commit to three Astute class submarines, of which there is no mention in the Green Paper?
The same applies to the RAF. Pilot numbers are at a 10-year low. What a sign of the times it is that the Secretary of State has to offer fighter pilots £50,000 golden handcuffs to stay, just at the moment when he is closing 5 Tornado squadron.
The Eurofighter is late and badly over-budget, as we have heard. It seems to be being brought into question. Then we come to air transport and the A400M saga. Will the Minister confirm whether the A400M will definitely be delivered and if so when? From a constituency standpoint, will he ensure that it will be based at RAF Lyneham in my constituency, which I am straightforward about asking for? We cannot have all our transport eggs in one basket.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire, who raised the Chinook issue, spoke with passion. It seems that Ministers will have to explain why

409
they are not ready to accept the outcome of the Select Committee in the other place. Will they be ready to appear before a recommissioned Select Committee to explain why not? They should accept the overwhelming evidence before them.
The shortages in the procurement and spending bow waves, which are creeping up on the Ministry of Defence, are becoming realities in the Green Paper. The services do not have the resources to deliver the ever increasing tasks that the Government are giving them and the new chapter of the SDR must not be used to camouflage procurement or operational budgetary shortfalls. The Government are simply asking our superb and ever willing armed forces to do too much with too little. Will the Minister commit himself to providing the resources that they need to carry out their ever more grandiose tasks?
6.45 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): This defence policy debate comes at a particularly appropriate and important time. I welcome all the contributions—perhaps even that of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—and pay particular thanks to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for his opening comments and his recognition of the role played in our defence by the armed forces, and the intelligence services in particular. Other Members referred to that, but the hon. Gentleman's comments hit the nail on the head.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House in opening the debate, our defence policy must be flexible and able to evolve and adapt as international circumstances change. The 1998 strategic defence review undertook an extremely important assessment of the post-cold war strategic environment. It is clear that the review, and the changes to our defence policies and structures that it has driven, remain relevant following 11 September. It provided the foundation on which real improvements to our defences, such as more rapidly deployable, sustainable, robust and versatile forces, have been based.
The review was widely welcomed in the defence community and beyond it, and it has become the framework for other nations as they examine their defence postures. However, as my right hon. Friend made clear to the House, it is vital that we consider what has changed and identify how we need to adapt to meet those new circumstances. It is important to stress that the work we are undertaking is not a new strategic defence review, no matter how others may want to portray it. It is a new chapter that builds on the review and develops our thinking in areas which, for reasons I hope we all understand, have assumed a new prominence. It will help to ensure that defence policy, which drives the military tasks that we ask our services to be able to carry out and the nature of the equipment that we procure, takes full account of the requirement to prevent and defend against terrorism in all its manifestations.
However, we are operating in a less certain context. The SDR recognised a time of more diffuse, less certain risks. Threats to the United States, our allies and our interests overseas are not always well advertised, but they are no less real. Our opponents may use terror and force to try to achieve impossible aims and objectives, and it is not always immediately obvious how our strengths, not least in military power through our armed forces, may be used to overcome those threats.
410
The work that the Secretary of State has put in hand seeks to identify what may need to be done differently, or additionally, as a result, but this is not a world turned upside down. As well as new dangers, old threats remain, and we must be ready to meet both. It may be argued that a new world exists post-11 September, but the old world has not been replaced. It continues to exist, and it is in that context that the debate is taking place.
The debate has been wide ranging and we have touched on a lot of subjects. I cannot take up every one, but let me deal with the Chinook issue. I am doubtful as to whether it touches on defence policy, but I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that the outcome could affect morale. I understand the depth of the right hon. Gentleman's feeling, but I am sure that, as an ex-Minister, he knows that it would be inappropriate to respond from the Dispatch Box to a detailed and rigorous report that requires intensive scrutiny by the Department. That is being undertaken. Useful contributions have been made, but I ask all Members to take their consideration beyond the technical aspects of the report and the terrible tragedy that occurred. We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance.
The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) tried to say that all members of our armed forces want to fight. I am not sure that he quite meant that. I remind him that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the Opposition Defence spokesman, said on Monday 11 February that the Government should reduce the number of military commitments. The Tories say that Britain's armed forces are involved in too many operations, but they refuse to say which commitments they would cut.
The hon. Member for Newark wants there to be more activity, but the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen say that there should be less, that every commitment suffers from mission creep, and that no mission will ever succeed. The Opposition never offer congratulations on success, just more criticism, because their approach is based on party politics.
Questions have been asked about the cost of Eurofighter. Those costs have not risen by £2.7 billion, as was claimed. The programme is subject to regular and rigorous scrutiny. Procurement costs are reported annually to the National Audit Office. In the major projects review of 2001, those costs were put at £18.8 billion. The media recently reported a figure of £21.5 billion, but that includes initial support costs that were not included in the MPR figure. The result is that like is not being compared with like.
It is true that Eurofighter procurement costs, year on year, have risen by £37 million. In a programme of such complexity, that is a modest increase of 0.2 per cent. The Comptroller and Auditor General has acknowledged that the Ministry of Defence is continuing to control costs better. In the last year, project costs overall have fallen by £100 million. Eleven projects are now below the costs specified when the decision to buy was taken.
Mr. Francois: The Minister mentioned the Eurofighter costs in MPR 2000, and compared that figure with what appeared in MPR 2001. What was the cost of the programme in MPR 1998?
Mr. Ingram: I do not carry all the relevant figures in my head. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the

411
figure, but my point is that the audited overrun in the project is very small. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stop running scare stories on the matter. By concentrating on cost overruns, the implication is that we should not spend the money. If that is the logic of what people are advising, I hope they will say so. If they honestly believe that the cost overrun is becoming unsustainable, I hope that they will say so and make a decision accordingly. We remain committed to the Eurofighter aircraft.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked me to pass on his thanks for the opportunities that arose to visit so many units. I hope that more hon. Members will avail themselves of the opportunities to visit armed forces units. The armed forces parliamentary scheme is a good way for Members of Parliament to be aware of everything that is happening on the front line of military activities.
Several hon. Members spoke about the role of the Territorial Army and the reserves. If I heard him correctly, the hon. Member for New Forest, West said that he was opposed to the cuts in the TA that occurred at the time of the SDR. It is worth pointing out that the Tory Government cut TA numbers by 20,000 in the 10 years to 1997. When did the Tories become converts with regard to cuts in the TA? The SDR focused on the strategic needs of the Territorial Army and the reserves. Previously, cuts in the TA numbers had been driven exclusively by Treasury demands to save money.
I do not want to fall out with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is not in the Chamber at the moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] I apologise, my right hon. Friend is present. Our experience since the SDR has demonstrated the validity of its conclusions with regard to the TA. The specialist support units, such as signallers, logistic units and medical troops, were the focus of the TA restructuring. They have been in heavy demand for deployment in operations in places such as the Balkans.
Other hon. Members have noted that, since 1995, around 10 per cent. of our forces deployed in the Balkans have been made up of reservists. Currently, about 700 reservists are deployed for operational service, in the UK and overseas. More than 1,700 personnel are currently on full-time reserve service—almost 800 of them in the Army. That is a clear example of the utility and cost-effectiveness of our reserve forces.
Compulsory mobilisation of the reserves does not mean that we are short of volunteers; it means greater certainty that we have the right number of people with the right skills to meet emerging requirements. I am proud that we have both the courage and the honesty to make the call-out compulsory. It is always difficult to do that. Members of the TA welcome it as a demonstration of our confidence in them. We train the reserves to be indistinguishable from the regulars alongside whom they work. We expect nothing less from them and, inevitably, they respond to the trust placed in them.
In relation to UK home defence, we are considering whether we need to enhance the assistance we provide to build our civil defence. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that the leading role for domestic security remains with the civil authorities. That will always be the case. However,
412
nowadays, the reservists form an integral part of our defence plans. They provide the well-trained, usable assets that we envisaged in the strategic defence review.
It was pointed out that we intend to turn the TA into a glorified security guard force. The point was well made, but the discussion paper poses questions as to whether the new situation suggests additional uses for the reserves, both abroad and at home. There are a range of possible roles at home. We have made it clear that we want to consult the current reservists and their employers before we take any decisions. We attach great importance and value to the volunteer ethos of the reserves and do not want to propose developments in their role that would undermine the enthusiasm and commitment that they bring to their work. We must have a balanced approach.
Overstretch has been raised by several Members. We take it very seriously indeed. We take it so seriously that we reduce the percentage of the Army committed to operations as soon as we possibly can—from the peak of 43 per cent. at the time of the Kosovo crisis to 27 per cent today, with most units well within the tour intervals envisaged in the SDR. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) made perceptive comments on overstretch, which has been a problem for a long time. The other comments in his all-too-brief contribution were also perceptive.
We fully recognise the depth of the undermanning problem. We have to try to find solutions. That is why we have embarked on an intensive programme of retention and recruitment measures to stimulate the willingness of members of our community to continue to serve in the armed forces. An operational welfare package was introduced in April last year. We recently announced a major aircrew retention review after a thorough analysis of the problem. We are dealing with the extensive problems of single living accommodation.
We inherited major difficulties, with total costs running into many billions of pounds for many years ahead, but they have to be tackled if we are serious about the issues. We have announced that the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will be implemented in full.
In 1999, the service families taskforce was set up as a central focus for family issues and to liaise with other Departments on matters that were outside the MOD's control. I chair that committee and senior Ministers from other Departments serve alongside me trying to find answers to the problems. A wide range of recruitment strategies accompany that work.
The hon. Members for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), for Mid-Sussex and for Newark made points about a two-tier Army. We do not have a two-tier Army. Units serving with distinction in a variety of operational circumstances—in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere—are not helped by suggestions that, if they are not at the sharp end, where the real fighting is going on, or if they are not engaged in major peacekeeping events, they are not serving their country. Of course they do: they serve this country with distinction.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked about the £100 million that was announced for immediate operational requirements in and around Afghanistan. That is indeed an additional investment. I shall write to him with more details about it.

413
I do not have time to mention the defence fire service other than to say that a major review is taking place on that, and that all the work that has been done for the fire study 2000 report will of course be—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Defence Policy

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on 25th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2002 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion.—[Dan Norris.]

Planning (Historic Buildings)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
7 pm
Bob Russell: Every week the Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol authorises the demolition or disfigurement of three listed buildings, contrary to the wishes of the local communities where those historic buildings are located. Sometimes those decisions, which are taken by a single inspector, are also against the recommendation of English Heritage, which is the official body appointed by the Government to safeguard our nation's historic built environment.
The loss of historic buildings and damage to others, allowed on appeal, are in addition to those authorised by local councils. A large part of our country's built heritage is being irretrievably destroyed. That loss is bad enough, but I submit that it is worse when the decision is taken contrary to the views of the local council. Today's custodians must have respect not only for the past but, perhaps more important, for future generations. It seems that the Planning Inspectorate pays scant regard to that.
Every decision to approve a planning appeal, made by a single person with no personal knowledge of the area, is done against the express wishes of that community as determined by locally elected councillors who are answerable to their electors. Planning inspectors are not elected. They are not accountable to the communities against whom they pass judgment. Local councillors on planning committees, taking account of all the facts before them, come to a decision. It is called democracy.
An applicant, unhappy with a decision, has the right to go to appeal. It is not unknown for wealthy owners to employ highly paid lawyers and so-called "experts" prepared to prostitute themselves for payment and to give evidence to suit the case and pocket of the owner. An easily swayed inspector—making a fleeting visit to a town which perhaps he has never been to before—overturns a decision that has been carefully arrived at by locally elected councillors. That is not democracy.
There is little point in Government complaining about people not voting in local elections when town halls increasingly have less power and influence over what happens in their community. When residents see planning decisions affecting their town or village reversed by anonymous inspectors from hundreds of miles away, the democratic process is brought further into contempt.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 564, which I tabled on 12 December 2001. Headed "English Heritage", it states:
"That this House expresses its appreciation to English Heritage for the vital work which it undertakes in seeking to preserve the best of our national heritage; believes that the views of English Heritage should not be overturned by a single Planning Inspector, and that in such instances where a contrary view is taken then the final decision should be referred to the Secretary of State for a second opinion to be sought; regrets that too many of the nation's historic and listed buildings have already been lost; and therefore urges the Secretary of State to investigate and take all the steps available to him to reverse the outcome of the planning appeal in respect of the Grade II Listed Jumbo Water Tower in Colchester, the largest surviving Victorian water tower in Britain, which a Planning Inspector has ruled can be destroyed, contrary to the wishes of the democratically elected local councillors."

415
I am grateful to hon. Members, from different parties and from different parts of the country, who have signed that early-day motion. I suspect that they have knowledge of similar planning outrages in their areas.
The Library has kindly provided me with background information which states:
"English Heritage is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment."
The work of English Heritage is overseen by a board of up to 16 commissioners, selected by the Government.
English Heritage has powers set out in the National Heritage Act 1983, section 33 of which lays down its general functions, including a declaration that
"It shall be the duty of the Commission"
to undertake such tasks as
"to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings"
and
"to promote the public's enjoyment of, and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England and their preservation".
I can only conclude that the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol is oblivious to what is contained in the National Heritage Act 1983.
The debate is of national significance. By focusing on a controversial decision in my constituency, I want to illustrate something that happens throughout the country. By tabling parliamentary questions, I have discovered that planning inspectors reject the carefully considered decisions of local councillors every week. In many cases, such as the jumbo water tower in Colchester, those decisions are also contrary to the detailed consideration, conclusions and recommendations of English Heritage. What vote of confidence is it in English Heritage when a planning inspector, without the knowledge and background of the case in point, can breeze in and disregard the expert opinions of the Government's own watchdog for historic buildings?
Fortunately, the Minister has seen the jumbo water tower before it is destroyed. I pointed it out to her from the high street and on the returning train to London when she made a ministerial visit to Colchester last year on matters that had nothing to do with this planning issue. She is aware of the significant impact that the historic tower has on the skyline. It is on top of a hill in the centre of Britain's oldest recorded town, next to the ancient monument of the Roman wall and within a conservation area.
I do not hold the Minister or her Department responsible for the planning disaster that confronts us; I only wish that they had been part of the decision-making process, in which case I believe that the wrong decision would not have been made. After all, the Department's own buildings watchdog, English Heritage, made it clear that the proposals, which will destroy the architectural integrity of the tower by removing its cast-iron tank, should be refused.
Regrettably, the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol decided that a single planning inspector should be given delegated powers to determine the appeal. The fact that English Heritage opposed the proposal should have given
416
a warning signal that the decision was too serious to be left to one individual if he had a different view. There is no equivalent of a court of appeal when an inspector finds against a local council and English Heritage on planning matters. The owner of a property, however, can have as many goes as he likes using—some would say abusing and misusing—the planning system to get his way. If an application is refused, he can try again; if he is unhappy with the decision, he can go to appeal; if he loses that, he can start all over again.
In contrast, however, those who truly cherish our historic past have to win every time: if a council says "yes", then that is it; if a council says "no" but an inspector at a planning appeal says "yes", then that is it. The system is clearly loaded in favour of those who have the time and money to try and try again until they get their own way. As my early-day motion proposes, there should be a mechanism for a Minister to call for a second opinion to be sought when English Heritage opposes a proposal and an inspector thinks differently.
I recognise that in the case of the jumbo water tower the decision—a very bad one at that, with national ramifications—has been made. The only hope is that the owner will realise that his eccentric desire to spend the best part of £2 million to build a glazed residential box high in the sky is a folly—as in a foolish act, not an ornamental building. The house will be a goldfish bowl by day and a Chinese lantern by night. If the owner wishes to be remembered with gratitude by present and future generations he will, even at this stage, acknowledge that retaining all the features of the largest surviving Victorian water tower in Britain is more important to our national heritage than disfigurement.
It would be nice if the Government acknowledged that the planning inspector has blundered and that ways should be found to accommodate the recommendations of English Heritage. I invite the Minister to see what she, her ministerial colleagues and English Heritage can collectively do to retrieve the situation.

I am sure that the highly respected "Piloti" of Private Eye fame, who has twice in that esteemed organ featured the jumbo water tower controversy and regularly exposed the fate of so many of our nation's historic buildings, would welcome—along with many others—greater protection.
I also invite the Minister to give an assurance that, if the owner of the jumbo water tower seeks to undo the conditions that have been imposed by the inspector, that will not be permitted, and that any future planning applications will be called in for determination. In granting the appeal, the inspector did not give the owner all that he wanted—perhaps 75 per cent. of the loaf, but by no means all of it.
It should be remembered that we are dealing with an owner and his paid professionals who have used every means that they can think of to secure a planning consent that had been denied them by councillors. In total, over several years, they rejected 16 applications to remove the tank and replace it with a 100 per cent. glazed residential box, towering 100 feet or so above the town centre.
It is to the credit of Colchester borough councillors—the majority of them at any rate—that they refused to buckle. That is more than can be said of council planning officers, who were such enthusiastic supporters of what the owner and previous owners wanted that the views of

417
councillors and English Heritage were brushed aside. Fortunately, English Heritage was made of sterner stuff and refused to budge, unlike the Victorian Society, which was initially opposed to the loss of the tank, but which, in due course, demonstrated what a spineless organisation it is by caving in and meekly agreeing to what the owner wanted to do. Why did it do that, I wonder?
An attempt was also made to get English Heritage to drop its opposition. The owner wrote to the then chief executive in a manner that was clearly designed to put pressure on officers further down the line. I am relieved to say that that tactic did not work.
The Minister may care to observe that party politics became involved. Councillors in all parties were initially opposed to what the owner wanted, but an astonishing about-turn then occurred, when Conservative councillors on the planning committee switched to supporting the owner. Later, in what I am sure was purely an amazing coincidence, in the opening leaflet of the general election campaign, the Conservative candidate made the jumbo water tower an election issue, supporting what the owner wanted. Any suggestion of financial support by the owner in return would, of course, be unthinkable in a democracy, particularly when planning applications are involved. It is certainly the case, however, that the owner's plan for the jumbo water tower was the subject of vocal support by the Conservative party's then shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on a visit to Colchester.
The Labour candidate and I supported the borough council's opposition to the owner's plans. On polling day, our combined votes were two to one to the Conservative candidate, whose share of the vote fell, while my majority was trebled. The people of Colchester spoke. Alas, the planning inspector subsequently approved what the defeated Conservative candidate wanted—another bad day for democracy.
As an aside, the Minister may care to ponder the fact that the jumbo water tower was built by the visionary city fathers of Colchester corporation in the last quarter of the 19th century. It was funded by local ratepayers. In 1974, as a result of local government reorganisation, the tower and all other water assets were taken from the borough council and handed to the new publicly owned Anglian water authority.
Years later, the water industry was privatised by the Conservative Government and, in due course, the now redundant jumbo water tower was sold to property speculators. At no time did the people of Colchester receive a single penny in compensation for the public asset that was taken from them. It would be justice if the building was returned to public ownership, restored as a monument to Victorian civic pride and civil engineering excellence and turned into a tourist attraction and viewing platform, which is what local campaigners advocate.
The Minister will, of course, be aware of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers. Its chairman wrote to me last month and said that the association's strategy, endorsed by the Local Government Association, had among its specific objectives the need to
"raise awareness of the value of the historic environment and the role of local authorities in its management, and improving access to the historic environment for the general public."
418
In its "Strategy 2001–2006", in the section headed "Historic Buildings", the association states:
"ALGAO promotes the understanding and the conservation of all built historic structures. Historic landscape characterisation provides the broad context for individual buildings, establishing their contribution to local distinctiveness and supporting the sustainable management of all historic structures."
ALGAO also calls for an
"extension of control over the demolition of historic structures"
and seeks to
"promote conservation of the built heritage in the context of sustainable development through retention and sympathetic adaptation."
The ALGAO historic buildings committee says that it
"is working in partnership with English Heritage, the Institute of Historic Buildings Conservation, the Royal Town Planning Institute and others to achieve these objectives."
Perhaps the Minister can state whether the Government also are seeking to achieve the objectives of conserving our built heritage. In my opinion, the Planning Inspectorate is not.
I sought this debate because I feel that the House should be made aware of the inadequacies of the present planning appeal system and, in particular, how even the excellent work of English Heritage can be dismissed by a single planning inspector. There must be a better system for determining cases when the overwhelming evidence of opponents of a development, the local democratically elected councillors and the expert recommendations of English Heritage all come to one conclusion only for a single inspector to overturn that conclusion in favour of an appellant who has, in effect, bought a permission through buying a listed building at a cost that reflects the planning constraints on it and then uses the planning system to obtain a consent against all the informed evidence and opinion.
I invite the Minister to consider carefully the need to improve the planning appeal system, particularly where it relates to listed buildings on which English Heritage has expressed views. Existing legislation is weak. It needs strengthening, otherwise even more of our nation's historic buildings will be lost.
7.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on his success in securing this debate on an important aspect of the Government's planning policy. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has presented his case. He has given a clear impression to the House of the importance of the preservation of historic buildings and of the strength of views in Colchester about this particular building. He is right: I have seen the water tower and remember it well as an outstanding and notable building.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on the merits of this specific case because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has a formal role and responsibilities in the planning appeals process. However, it might be helpful if I set out the

419
general legislative position and describe the policy pressures that come to bear on such matters. I shall also try to deal with some of the more general points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He referred to the different positions that the political parties on the local authority took, and he will know that such decisions are bound by codes of conduct and suchlike.
I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the important role played by the historic environment in so many areas of our lives and about the importance of protecting our built environment and heritage buildings. There are about 500,000 listed buildings in this country and we are incredibly lucky to have some of the most beautiful historic buildings in the world. From the Royal crescent in Bath to Liverpool's Liver building, from St Paul's cathedral in London to towns such as St. Albans and Saffron Walden, we have an architectural heritage of which we can be proud. Indeed, people from all round the world come to see it.
In Colchester, the community has its fair share of excellent buildings, with fine examples from Roman times through to the present day. The hon. Gentleman represents the town that can make the enviable claim to be Britain's oldest, so I need hardly tell him how important historic buildings are to the quality of our national life and to our sense of identity as a nation. In Colchester, they form part of its sense of being an important and thriving town. They also play a vital part in helping to make our towns and cities more vibrant and successful places in which to work and live.
"A Force for Our Future", which the Government published in December, sets out a wide-ranging vision that shows how we recognise fully the importance of the built heritage in our national life and the obligation to care for it for our own benefit and that of future generations. It stresses that the historic environment can improve the quality of life for all of us through the regeneration of our towns, cities and countryside, encouraging a greater sense of community and greater prosperity.
However, preservation need not mean fossilising buildings. Our planning policy guidance note 15, "Planning and the historic environment", recognises that generally the best way to secure the upkeep of historic buildings and areas is to keep them in active use. The restoration of historic buildings can play a major role in urban renewal by promoting confidence in the future of an area and by serving as a catalyst for stimulating regeneration, bringing together communities and tackling social exclusion. In recent years we have seen the practice of adapting old buildings to make them available for the way we live now become more widespread, with loft apartments in warehouses, fashion designers working in old textile mills, offices in former factories, and shops and bars on canal wharves. I noted with some amusement the hon. Gentleman's description of what the building concerned would look like afterwards, but it is an example of another way in which a beautiful historic building can be preserved, and illustrates what can be achieved through a combination of innovation, commitment and enthusiasm.
At the same time, judging the best use for an historic building is one of the most important and sensitive
420
assessments that local planning authorities and other bodies involved in conservation have to make. That is the nub of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and it might help if I broadly describe the planning system—not only what happens, but why it happens.
We need to have an effective framework of statutory protection for all elements of the historic environment. That is where the planning system has a key part to play. When applications involve works to listed buildings, decision makers must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that the building possesses.
Central to the decision-making process are our planning policy guidance notes, which must be taken into account where relevant in decisions on planning and listed building consent applications. PPG 15 provides a full statement of Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. It complements the guidance on archaeology and planning given in PPG 16.
It is important that those with particular expertise have their say before decisions are made, and it is clear that the process of consultation can enhance the quality of the end product. However, planning is not an exact science and cases vary widely. Decision makers are required to balance a range of factors—social, economic and environmental—when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission. Similarly, the weight that should be attached to the views of consultees and to other material considerations will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case.
I recognise that some people—the hon. Gentleman puts himself fair and square among them—are not happy that developers can appeal against a local council planning decision. However, that right of appeal is a long-established part of the planning system. When comprehensive planning controls were first introduced in 1947, Parliament decided that developers should have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision that prevented them from developing their land and property as they wished. That right has remained an integral part of the system. More recently, a review in 2000 of the Planning Inspectorate executive agency concluded that it remained the right body to handle appeals cases.
The hon. Gentleman will know that a review of the planning process is ongoing. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to make his views known. I assure him that no decision to overrule the judgment of a local planning authority is ever taken lightly. In all cases planning inspectors are fully briefed on the circumstances of the appeal proposal, and they will visit the site to familiarise themselves with its location and surroundings. The Planning Inspectorate has an impressive reputation in its handling of planning appeals. Each planning inspector acts in a quasi-judicial role as a mini-tribunal. The integrity, impartiality and fairness with which each appeal is handled is widely acknowledged. I am satisfied that inspectors are equipped to consider all relevant aspects of appeal cases.

421
The new appeals procedures that we introduced in 2000 are designed to balance the desire for timely decisions with the need to ensure that the public have sufficient time to participate fully in the appeals process.
Under the new rules, the local planning authority must notify people that an appeal has been made within two weeks from the starting date. Everyone consulted on the original application and anyone else who made representations at the application stage should be included. The process ensures that people have at least four weeks in which to make their comments known.
The vast majority of planning appeals in England are determined by planning inspectors. Typically, out of around 14,000 planning appeals each year, between 100 and 150 cases have been recovered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his own determination. We have set out guidelines for recovering cases. These include appeals involving proposals for large-scale retail or leisure development, significant development in the green belt and major proposals of more than local significance.
However, in recognition of their outstanding architectural or historic interest, my right hon. Friend automatically recovers appeals concerned with grade I and grade II* listed buildings. He may also recover other appeals involving listed buildings at his own discretion. The figure of 100 to 150 cases that I mentioned includes around 40 recovered appeals concerning listed buildings. That gives an indication of the thorough and detailed care and attention that is given to decisions on appeals.
422
If the hon. Gentleman would like some more information about the review of the planning process, I should be happy to ensure that he receives it, so that he can have an input. There is not enough time in the debate to go through all of that process.
Our historic buildings and sites are a great source of pleasure, as the hon. Gentleman said. They stand as a record of artistic and technical achievement and are an inspiration for creativity in our own age and for the future. They are a highly regarded and valuable focus for the life of many communities, as indeed is the building in Colchester to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As we said in "A Force for Our Future", there are already many good things happening, including greater access and more community involvement, but a great deal more remains to be done if the historic environment's full potential is to be realised. Good planning provides an essential underpinning to the success of our economy, our communities and our environment, not least our historic environment.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take into account the views that he has expressed today in taking forward the various initiatives arising from "A Force for Our Future" and the planning Green Paper. I am grateful to him for bringing these issues to my attention today, and I am sure that he will continue vigorously to represent the views of his constituents on these matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Paramilitary Intimidation
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Session 2000–01 HC 59 and the Government's response thereto HC 461]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: First, I thank the Liaison Committee for allowing the debate. It is important that the subject is aired, and if we cannot air it on the Floor of the House, it is as well to do so here. Secondly, my hon. Friends know, but not everyone will know, that the report was prepared before the last general election, and therefore not under my chairmanship but under that of my noble Friend Lord Brooke. I pay tribute to him on behalf of my colleagues for the sensitive and light touch with which he handled the Select Committee for five years—I am not allowed to notice him in the Public Gallery today. I am trying hard to follow his difficult act.
The report inevitably touched on devolved matters. One problem with the new devolved institution in Northern Ireland is the involvement of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in providing support for victims who have been removed from their homes. I am happy that the executive supported the Committee's inquiry, and provided a response, for which we are grateful. During this Session, that was printed with the Government's response in the fourth special report.
The inquiry was launched in 2000; evidence was taken then, and at the beginning of 2001. Disappointingly, the Government did not respond to our report until the beginning of December, eight months after the report was published, and well beyond the deadlines that Government set themselves. That disappointing delay can be explained partly by the intervention of the election and the summer recess, but eight months cannot be entirely explained away.
Most people think that, with the ceasefire and the ending of violence in Northern Ireland, many problems have gone away. They may think that punishment beatings, expulsions and evictions by intimidation have disappeared. That is far from the case, and some statistics show that the opposite has happened. The Base 2 project run by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which works for the reintegration of individuals into the community, shows that the number of referrals to NIACRO has increased steadily year on year. In 2000, 346 people had to be moved out of their houses into other ones—that is almost one each day. The problems have not gone away.
That figure reflects only the cases that are reported. People who steal away after they have been ejected, or who move because they are frightened to stay after being threatened and intimidated, but do not report that they have done so, do not appear in the figures. It is therefore probable that the figure is higher. Many people may think that young men who have been involved at the
140WH
fringes of paramilitary activity are mainly affected by such threats and intimidation, but that is not the case. It affects men and women of every age, and often children too. The article that recently appeared in The Times under the headline "Get out or be killed" paints a sad picture of the effect that intimidation has had on one family.
Intimidation is not something that occurs on one side of the community or the other. It happens between Protestants and Catholics, and Unionists and nationalists—one can use whatever phrase one likes. It happens in the Protestant-Unionist community and in the Catholic-nationalist community; people intimidate their own people. It is so widespread that one cannot define it as sectarian intimidation. A culture of no respect for the normal course of law and order grew up during the troubles and after the ceasefire. The Minister will agree that that is the first thing that needs to be addressed.
Sometimes intimidation just takes the form of a threat; sometimes it takes the form of real violence, and we all know of recorded cases of violence. Sometimes it is against individuals; sometimes it is against whole neighbourhoods, of which the recent sectarian trouble in north Belfast is a good example. More than 1,000 people have had to leave their homes because they are frightened to stay there or they have been intimidated out of staying there.
The question that we must ask, and which the report addresses, is what we can do about it. I am sure that the Minister has heard more than enough pleas for more money, more housing, better social conditions and this, that and the other. We all echo those pleas and hope that they will be answered as and when they can be. I understand the constraints under which the Minister operates.
I should make it doubly clear that I am speaking for myself; I did not take part in writing the report. Somebody, somewhere has got to make the paramilitaries understand that they cannot go on behaving in that lawless fashion. It is easy to criticise the police and say that the Police Service of Northern Ireland should do better and should not tolerate lawlessness. We know, however, that in many parts of Northern Ireland the police writ does not run.
The problem is more fundamental than that, but there is a way round it that the Government should be trying, and I am sad that there is little sign that they are. All sorts of concessions or all sorts of—if one does not like the word "concessions"—moves have been made since the Good Friday agreement. The agreement was painfully negotiated, and things happened such as the release of prisoners, in the interests of preserving the fragile peace to implement all aspects of the agreement and make Northern Ireland a normal society once again.
It appears to most that the people who have not moved and changed their ways are those who are carrying out the intimidation, the beatings, the punishments and the expulsions. They have not needed to change because they have been getting almost everything that they want. The Government has been slower to tackle that problem than many of us would have wished. It would have been easy to negotiate some sort of return of released prisoners, and not made their

141WH
release completely unconditional. Indeed, in Northern Ireland before the referendum, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be parallel progress in the return to normality. Nobody could say that progress in the return to normality has been parallel.
Now it is late, but not too late, for the Government to insist that before any more concessions are made, the problem of people who have been evicted be properly addressed. It should be made perfectly clear not only to the paramilitaries but to the political parties associated with them that that behaviour can no longer be tolerated in a society in which they want to be part of the normal political process. That is the deal that should be done.
A lot of offence was taken when Sinn Fein Members were allowed to come into this place. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who asked the Prime Minister a question about them yesterday. He said that he wished that they were here so that they could take part in the debate and be—[Interruption.] Are they here?
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): They may be listening.
Mr. Mates: They may be listening, but they are not here. If they were, they could stand up and justify the activity that is going on in the communities that they have been elected to serve. Surely those elected to serve in democratic forums owe it to those forums to ensure that what goes on in their communities, in so far as they can help it, is democratic and peaceful. They are making no attempt to do that, because it is not in their interests, and it has not been made in their interests, to do so.
Others will have different views to express, but I hope that what the Government takes away from the debate is that now, no further concessions should be made without getting something in return. The most important thing to get in return is recognition that it is unacceptable for people to be intimidated out of their homes, exiled or beaten up. Would it not be the ultimate irony—I said this to the Prime Minister yesterday, and got a very constructive response—for the Government to introduce a Bill giving amnesty to convicted criminals who have escaped from prison and to those wanted for the most serious terrorist crimes when there were no corresponding amnesty, so to speak—this is not really the right context in which to use that word—for those who have been expelled from their homes and cannot live in the communities in which they were born and brought up?
Jane Kennedy: I am listening with great care to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have read the report in detail. Does he accept, as the report identifies, that the causes of the displacement of people that we are discussing are many and complex? Doing a deal, as he and others are urging the Government to, is not the simple, straightforward step that he portrays. There are paramilitary organisations participating in such unacceptable violence that are not party to, and would not count themselves party to, any such deal. They cannot be let off the hook.
Mr. Mates: Far be it from me ever to have suggested that anything in Northern Ireland is simple. I once did
142WH
the Minister's job, so I do not think that she needs to accuse me of that. I know how complex such matters are, but I am asking why we have not said at some stage along the road, "Hang on, we're doing all of this, so why are you not responding?"
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was waiting for an appropriate moment, and I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow. I put on record my slight regret that I arrived late because there are two simultaneous debates on Northern Ireland going on. Is there any way, through the channels that you have available, Madam Deputy Speaker, for you to ensure that such double booking can be avoided in future? Several hon. Members who would like to be participating in this debate are detained in the Standing Committee that is considering the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. However, I think that the business managers of this House will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Mates: I was about to give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
Rev. Martin Smyth: On the point that the hon. Member has been trying to explain, and to which the Minister responded, the key point can be made in the words of Monsignor Denis Faul, who cannot be described as a partisan politician, although he may have different political views from me. He asked the Government to make no more concessions until those who are in a position to deal with the issues start doing so. The hon. Gentleman referred to the article in The Times, which also describes a lack of confidence. A Member of Parliament gave permission for an exile to return on the understanding that nothing would happen, but that person ended up dead. We cannot hide behind those who are not in a position to do something, when those who are in such a position do nothing.
Mr. Mates: I have nearly reached the end of what I wanted to say. I understand that the situation is complicated. There are no political fronts for some paramilitaries. If we were to tackle the main sources of the problem in Sinn Fein-IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Democratic party, that would be a start because the other groups are something of a minority. We must not justify inaction by saying that the problem is too difficult. It is intolerable that people take part in the democratic process who do nothing to prevent undemocratic behaviour.
Although I am sure that all Governments will do their best to improve the social and living conditions of the people, which are part of the problem, a robust attitude and a greater acceptance of the police are needed. It is a shame that the Sinn Fein MPs are not here to explain to us why they cannot support a police service that has been remodelled largely because of their demands. Communities must not look the other way as

143WH
intimidation happens because it will not stop if they do. All of us who care about the problems must see that they are taken care of, and that such intolerable behaviour does not continue.
2.47 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: For a moment, I would like to follow the theme touched on by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—the complexity of the problem. Those of us who live in the communities where such horrific events happen are sometimes puzzled ourselves as to their root cause. There is a heavy preponderance of headline intimidation from the paramilitaries, which often involves beatings, mutilations and shootings. That situation comes about for complex reasons. Sometimes, the reasons are paramilitary or political, sometimes they are drug-orientated or concerned with territorial control; they relate to protection rackets and the other sources of the paramilitaries' illegal income.
That people are visited with the injustice of exile, if you like, without any time to prepare themselves, their families or their children for the journey is one of the most unacceptable aspects of the remnants of 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. Another element of intimidation is an intercommunity problem, which is more difficult to handle. It has been endemic since the events on Bombay street and Hooker street in 1969. That was the first great exodus, which was caused by the state, I hasten to add. In two weeks, we saw the greatest movement of people in western Europe since the second world war. Many came to my town, where they were fed and housed in halls and huts throughout the constituency. Historically, such unacceptable examples of intimidation have taken place.
David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McGrady: I will in a moment. Intimidation is now seen as a weapon because more obvious violence such as bombings and shoot-outs are no longer acceptable. However, the communities themselves often engage in counter-intimidation. Sometimes it is deliberate; sometimes it is spontaneous. That issue will be the most difficult for our society to address.
Underneath that, there is another layer of intimidation and expulsion. Individual action is taken by persons who are not attached to any paramilitary organisation or who perform the action at the behest of an organisation or on its behalf. Often, acts of sheer personal vindictiveness occur in certain streets on certain estates. That wide spectrum of actions and attitudes forms part of the statistics, so the situation is extremely complex. Ultimately, there will be only one way to handle it.
I remember saying in the first debate that took place in the House after the ceasefire that, although we hoped for it, we could not expect an immediate return to normality after 30 years of crass abnormality, brutality and lack of esteem for the sanctity of life, never mind the ordinary laws by which we should abide. I said that it would take time for that to happen. It is taking longer than some of us would like but, in the end, the core issue is the creation of an acceptable, effective and efficient
144WH
police service supported by the entire community. Only when the community has confidence in the police—and the police in the community—will we be able to address the problems that are occurring on the streets. We have made considerable progress on the establishment of the new cross-community police force. It is getting a fair wind at the moment, and I hope and pray that that will continue.
As regards concessions to paramilitaries, the reason why I tried to illustrate the complexity of the problem is that doing or not doing deals with paramilitaries addresses only part of the problem. Immediately one addresses it, it disappears and arises under another heading, in a different way, with different people. The real carrot is to create an atmosphere of non-sectarianism, and respect for rights, liberties and law and order. I can only hope that rationality will be achieved as experience between and within the communities is gained, but it will take time.
I should like to make a few points about the report and the responses of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Office to it. Much is said about the co-ordination of the focal point of information. We are assured that such co-ordination is happening; that every agency is doing its thing and knows about the others. However, there is a problem, in that there appears to be no focal point for helping to ease the burden and trauma of people who are intimidated. We must organise that, highlight it, headline it and make it available. There must be a lead agency; in other words, people who are intimidated need to know where they should go as their first port of call. That is an important, practical aspect.
Another issue is the seamlessness of victim support systems in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The report correctly dealt with that in considerable detail, but it is difficult, in practice, to experience a seamless approach, particularly because of the Sheugh, as we call it—the little waterway between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. There is a complete transformation of environment for people who move from Belfast to Birmingham. They are both cities, but they are different and the experience is traumatic. There should be a handing over if people are exiled from the island of Ireland. It is an easier process if they are exiled within Northern Ireland from their own community.
Another matter is the response of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for East Hampshire referred to the enormous number of incidents during the past two years and one of the most telling statistics concerns shootings, which rose from 136 to 186—an increase of 50—in 2001. Such shootings are horrific and most people in this Chamber have not seen their result. One lad last week had both his kneecaps and his elbows blown apart. That is the extreme measure of this horrendous problem. We must provide total support for victims and at the same time try to create an atmosphere in which neighbours will try to prevent such shootings or, when they happen, help to bring those responsible to justice as quickly as possible. The agenda is enormous if we are to achieve that.
There have been tremendous difficulties in north Belfast, where two substantial communities have been at loggerheads almost daily. Much of the recent dislocation has been caused by sectarianism rather than

145WH
paramilitarism, drug patrols or protection rackets. I hope that that problem has been addressed, but again it will be a slow process.
The fundamental problem can be reached only by society adopting a new attitude to itself and the forces of law and order. In the meantime, we must address the mechanics of resolving problems for those who are intimidated and forced to relocate. Members of Parliament must address such issues in our communities daily.
2.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: First, I want to comment briefly on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I served on the Select Committee that conducted the inquiry, but have since left it and was unaware until I heard from my hon. Friend that the Government took eight months to respond. I endorse the deep regret that he expressed about that. It suggests an attitude of disdain on the part of the Government towards Select Committees. The Select Committee may have hoped that the Secretary of State would be in the Chamber today as a gesture to compensate for that extraordinary delay in replying.
I agree substantially with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), with one important proviso. I do not believe that the Belfast agreement is the mechanism or contains the means whereby normality can be returned to Northern Ireland.
My contribution to the debate will be brief because some of the salient points have been covered and I need not repeat them. I want to make a personal statement of regret that the subject of the inquiry included the phrase "paramilitary intimidation" because "paramilitary" is a misnomer in this context. A paramedic supports those who provide medical care. Strictly speaking, a paramilitary supports the military, and that is not the role of the "paramilitaries" in Northern Ireland. The danger of that misnomer is that it may divert attention away from the fact that we are dealing with unreconstructed terrorist organisations.
Professor Kennedy supplied the most compelling evidence that the Select Committee heard. In paragraph 58(m) on page 8 of the report, he said:
"Turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the problem of paramilitary domination of certain areas, including the practice of exiling, is a gross betrayal of some of the most vulnerable, powerless and disadvantaged members of our society…We need to break the silence, at all levels of society here. There has to be a fundamental debate about the gravity of the problems posed by paramilitary organisations in this society".
The Select Committee strongly agreed with that argument, and hoped that the report may provide a focus for the debate.
146WH
The Select Committee's difficulty in defining the scale of the problem was a manifestation of that blind eye being turned to the problem. We heard evidence that the practice of intimidation and relocation was prevalent in both nationalist and loyalist communities at about the same level. We learned from witnesses that many expulsions and punishment beatings went unreported and unannounced for the simple reason that the victims feared further punishment or violence to themselves or their families.
Neither the police nor the Northern Ireland Office could produce figures for the numbers of people who were relocating in Northern Ireland. That state of affairs fully justified the Select Committee's recommendation for significantly more accurate definition of the problem and the pattern of relocating as a precursor to improving the response to the problem of relocating following intimidation. Publicity is a key element of the response, but is not the only one. As the hon. Member for South Down mentioned, the solution lies in enhancing the effectiveness of the rule of law. It is a matter of opinion whether that will be achieved under the police reforms. I hope that it can, but I have grave doubts. The police force is broken, dejected and demoralised. There is also little evidence that it has any more cross-community support than it did. That is scarcely surprising because in Northern Ireland principles, morality and justice have been sacrificed to appease terrorism.
In paragraph 6 of the introduction to the report, the Select Committee makes an important point:
"The terms of reference we adopted concentrate specifically on those intimidated by paramilitary organisations into relocating, either within Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Expulsion is, however, only one of the tactics used by paramilitary organisations in relation to their control over areas. Not surprisingly therefore, much of the evidence has tended to reflect the rather broader theme of paramilitary attempts to control communities in their areas of operation, with exclusions viewed as one particular mechanism used."
Another mechanism through which terrorists seek to terrorise communities was drawn to the Minister's attention when she met members of the victim support group West Tyrone Voice in Newtownstewart on 23 January. She was told that West Tyrone Voice has contact with 22 people in its area who are under death threats, either from the Provisional IRA, or from other republican organisations. That number does not include current or former members of the security services, who are always in that situation. Moreover, the number of people under threat of death has been increasing over the past three or four months at the rate of two a month. That is against a backcloth of 98 murders in West Tyrone during the troubles, 24 of which happened in the area of Castlederg, for which no one has been convicted.
Local Sinn Fein propaganda is that the IRA has defeated the British Government and the British Army. The IRA regularly and openly trains in Killeter forest, a fact that is known to the Strabane police, who take no action whatever. Those are the manifestations of the total breakdown of the rule of law and order in much of the Province.
3.5 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The report is extremely important. I share a number of horizons with hon. Members who have spoken so far,

147WH
the first of whom was the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), but I might sometimes place different nuances on certain aspects. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who were members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that produced the report. It is also a pleasure to be discussing a report that was one of the final two produced by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament under the chairmanship of the now Lord Brooke. I must stop paying compliments to him, because I pay so many. I appreciate the work that he did and the way in which he assisted that Committee to involve itself in serious discussions and to produce a series of valuable reports that did not duck the major issues in Northern Ireland. We have continued in that vein to pick up important matters under the current Chairman.
It is not often appreciated in Britain that Northern Ireland is now more divided in community terms than at any time in its history. The 30 years of trouble and the peace process that is on and off and does not change the balance of communities, have affected the possibilities of reconciliation, advancement and cross-community developments. People are separated in a strong way. As the hon. Member for South Down said, some of the intimidation goes back a long way and is not always exactly paramilitary intimidation, although paramilitaries may have been involved in stimulating and encouraging a great deal of it.
There has been intimidation leading to exile. Some intimidation has come specifically from paramilitaries and some has resulted from communal disputes and uprisings in which the paramilitaries have got involved. Much of that has led to internal exile within Northern Ireland. Some of it is resolved in the sense that people become members of different communities in Northern Ireland. The people whom the hon. Member for South Down described moving into his area, are now part of that community and have developed links and connections. They are not therefore exiles who seek resettlement in the areas that they came from. They have come to accept that their futures lie elsewhere.
As the hon. Member for Basingstoke pointed out, exile is but one tactic of intimidation and control; there are also punishment beatings and strong pressures on communities to conform.
Assistant Chief Constable McQuillan was an excellent person to present evidence to the Committee and respond to questions. He talked about areas where there was considerable paramilitary involvement and activity. They are not no-go areas—the police insist that there are no such areas now—but they might be described as slow-go areas, because the police have to defend themselves in those circumstances. He described the areas as part of Belfast, part of south Down, part of county Londonderry—including Derry—Dungannon and the border territories.
Maranatha, which gave excellent evidence and to which we spoke informally before deciding to embark on the investigation, saw the areas as wider than those mentioned and claimed that the paramilitaries were reaching into areas where they had not previously been
148WH
and were now in many rural districts. The exiles come from those areas and are handled by paramilitaries in different ways.
I always think that one key element in resisting intimidation, making progress and ending people's exile is publicity. That is needed to tackle the expulsions. Maranatha told us of a case in which a list of 30 or 40 names had been produced to help people expelled from Northern Ireland. As a result of the pressure that was exerted, the organisation involved stepped back from that activity.
Professor Kennedy raised another case. I should first mention that I know the professor well and that we have been involved in a number of activities together, with bodies such as the Peace Train and New Consensus, which had a United Kingdom section and is now New Dialogue, of which I am joint president. Professor Kennedy's evidence was, as ever, extremely valuable, as many other Committee members will agree. He gave an example of a case in Newry—I was active in publicising this matter from the Westminster end—in which five young men were expelled from the Drumlane estate. Two of the families stood out against that decision, and the two men concerned took refuge in Newry cathedral. They later went into hiding, and after four months the Provisional IRA decided to reduce their exile sentence to a year. Within the next week, the men returned to Newry and the IRA took no action against them.
If people are determined enough and have the force of communities and public attention behind them, it is possible to gain reprieves and at least temporary victories in this hideous game. If today's debate is nothing other than an exercise in anti-exile publicity, it will have served the House well and assisted the situation in Northern Ireland.
There are important internal exile cases, but I shall concentrate on cases in which people are forced out of Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Britain. In its Base 2 project report, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders says that an average of 300 people have been exiled a year since 1996. However, they are people who contact the organisation and of whom records are kept. It might be a bit of a problem for those who have been pushed into exile to try to get help from an organisation that deals with offenders if they are not offenders themselves. It has an unfortunate title for these purposes.
Maranatha calculates that 3,000 families from the small Province of Northern Ireland are living in exile at the moment, and one difficulty in compiling the report was getting to them. We could talk to the authorities and to Maranatha, which does invaluable work in smuggling people out of Northern Ireland and assisting them when they are in Britain, but talking to exiles is not easy.
I had the privilege this morning of holding a press conference in the Jubilee Room with Joseph McCloskey and his mother Bridie. Joseph's case is written up in the article in The Times on 8 February by David Lister, which the hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned. Joseph worked at a club. He was there once socially when one of the bouncers had trouble and was attacked by others. Joseph and his brother then moved in to sort

149WH
the situation out. Unfortunately for them, and unknown to them, the people whom they sorted out were members of the Provisional IRA.
Joseph is now in exile in the north of England with his wife and six children. His wife suffers trauma in connection with the incident and has to take tranquillisers. The children now have great problems in meeting their grandparents, extended family, friends, associates and neighbours. That is just one example of what has occurred, yet Joseph was never involved in any form of problematic activity. Paramilitary groups use the distorted justification that they have to deal with antisocial cases because the police do not operate in an area. They call themselves the substitute community police. That is nonsensical, because many of the cases have nothing to do with antisocial behaviour and, even if they did, there is no justification for self-appointed people acting in such an obnoxious way.
Joseph McCloskey was informed beforehand that the IRA was going to turn up at his home. He was organised. He held a shotgun legally, and when about eight members of the IRA turned up to break his door down, they fled because he and his family showed that they were capable of defending themselves. However, they could not defend themselves indefinitely, so they had to go into exile. Another case reported in the press in Armagh was about a time when the IRA burst in and found a teenager defending himself with a gun. They contacted the police and supposedly said, "This is the IRA. Can you help us?" I doubt whether they got a favourable response.
As Professor Kennedy said, traditionally, young men rather than families were intimidated. Those young men would plead with the paramilitary group to be kneecapped rather than forced into exile, because, despite its horrors, being maimed by knee-capping was preferable to being divorced from their families and neighbourhoods. That shows that, despite the difficulties, there is a quality of life in Northern Ireland that should be nurtured.
As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, I suggested yesterday that, as members of Sinn Fein and their assistants now have access to the House of Commons, they could turn up today and listen to the debate. I have booked the Jubilee Room at 5 o'clock, where the debate could continue; there is nothing to stop members of Sinn Fein speaking there even if they cannot speak in the Chamber because they refuse to take the oath. One reason why I supported their coming here was that I wanted to talk to them and engage in discussion. One of them has a room on the same corridor as me; I would love to see him walking along that corridor and then to pass the time of day or to have a serious discussion. However, as far as I know, no members of Sinn Fein are present, but Bridie and Joseph McCloskey are here listening to the debate. It would have been good if representatives of Sinn Fein could join us at 5 o'clock in the Jubilee Room.
Traditionally, exiles were young, working-class males, but since 1994 the trend has been for whole families to be pushed out. Even if some are problem families, that is no reason for crude policing, judging and executions by paramilitary groups. As Professor Kennedy said, they do not even make an effort to put the
150WH
gloss of a kangaroo court on their activities or pretend that they are meting out justice. They do not need that sort of cover.
Short of there being an end to intimidation and exiles, what can we do? We can develop the police service and, as suggested by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) yesterday, everyone should involve themselves in the arrangements for the new police authority and not put a veto on its activity. Policing, in the short and long term, is tremendously important.
We can assist exiles; the Government, in their eventual reply, talked a lot about the role of citizen's advice bureaux and the assistance that they can give. We perhaps waited rather a long time for rather little.
The report suggested other things that could be considered. It quotes from an investigation in 1991 by the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body—some members of that organisation are present—which does a great deal of invaluable work. It referred to
"—the importance of assistance to young people coming from Northern Ireland as a result of paramilitary activity receiving further study and support."
The report stresses the importance of educational assistance. It mentioned
"—the problems of acceptance and assimilation which may be faced in Great Britain by members of the Unionist community, who regard themselves as 'British' rather than 'Irish'; and
—the need to improve information for those coming to major British cities from Northern Ireland."
The different culture and background in the Province causes problems. We must improve the information available to those coming to live in major British cities from Northern Ireland.
A great deal is made in the report about the need for co-ordinated provisions to assist people. Advice bureaux are one answer, but we need to go beyond that. One suggestion emerged from a recommendation of the New Dialogue Peace Group, of which I am joint president. There is a need for an anti-intimidation unit or special body to confront problems. It should link the various authorities dealing with these sorts of activities and be responsive to the needs of this country.
David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another bureaucracy of civil servants and well-intentioned people—replacing what should be a civil police force enforcing the law and maintaining order within the Province—is the last thing that we want? The establishment of another intermediate agency will hinder the hon. Gentleman's objective of securing widespread community support for the forces of law and order, including the now highly demoralised Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Barnes: The police have the most significant role in Northern Ireland and an anti-intimidation unit would not be isolated from the police. It would seek their assistance. I do not accept the premise that organisations of well-intentioned people working for good causes are necessarily harmful. Many organisations, whether peace and reconciliation movements or bodies attempting to stamp out harmful activities, have helped to overcome some of Northern Ireland's problems, so I view them as welcome developments.

151WH
The Select Committee called for co-ordination. The Government's response, which is worth reflecting on, was that
"co-ordination of support activities, as the Committee advocates, would risk sending a signal to paramilitaries that, by working to alleviate the consequences of their actions, the Government was tacitly allowing them to continue with impunity."
I accept the difficulty, but some factors override the objections. If other actions were being carried out, it might be viewed as if the state were conniving, perhaps by providing sticking plaster and bandages to assist people in those circumstances.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that failure to provide a support structure is to add a second injury to individuals who have already been punished by the summary exile that the paramilitaries have imposed?
Mr. Barnes: The case overrides those worries, but people's perceptions are a problem.
The key things are for the paramilitaries to stop exiling people and to call off the dogs. How can we achieve that? Not by appealing to the paramilitaries' good nature or hoping that when their political organisations get what they want, everything will slip into place. We must apply what pressures we can. One is the pressure of publicity. Paramilitaries, particularly the Provisional IRA, adopt the attitude that they and their political links should always act to maximise their advantages or minimise their disadvantages. That is why some decommissioning has taken place and why some arms have been put beyond use. Paramilitaries were in an embarrassing political situation, both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
General elections are coming up soon in the Republic. We must remember that there was considerable reaction to extreme events that involved the Provisional IRA. The murder of Garda McCabe in Adare led to a mass funeral in Limerick and to considerable pressures. I hope that the Unionist Members who do not go to meetings of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body because they think that it comes out of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will reconsider their position. Some in the Republic are very worried about the pressures that come from the Provisional IRA and the political pressures that come from Sinn Fein. They worry that the balance of power will fall to those organisations, and that affects their position. Some politicians in the south have problems of self-interest, too.
There are issues about whether there should be trade-offs. I heard what my hon. Friend the Minister said this morning on BBC Radio Belfast, because I followed her. She was given a rough time by one of the interviewers on the question of intimidation because I was lined up next. She insists that there cannot be trade-offs, but that advancement should take place under the Belfast agreement. She thinks that it should not be a case of, "We will give a bit here if you give a bit there," but that genuine arrangements should be made. I have some sympathy with that view, but not in connection with that issue.
Mr. Mates: If the hon. Gentleman has sympathy with that view, how does he interpret the Prime Minister's remarks that there must be parallel progress? That patently has not happened.
Mr. Barnes: One can talk about parallel progress as advances that do not involve any concessions or
152WH
minuses. Trade-offs are to the fore when considering intimidation that leads to exile. Those who escaped from the Maze prison in 1983 in a mass break-out, and who were involved in the murder of 11 people at Enniskillen, are on the run from justice. Others, such as Joseph McCloskey, are on the run or hiding from injustice. The plight of the exiles seems to me worse than that of members of the Provisional IRA who are on the run. However, there is symmetry between the two cases, even though one is worse than the other. There is a clear case for considering the two together.
If paramilitaries want clearance for those on the run, there is a price to be paid. I think that action can be taken by certain paramilitary groups in order to achieve that. In that view, I part company somewhat with the hon. Member for South Down. I agree that the process will take a long time, but the various paramilitary organisations have sufficient control over their membership to lay down the line. Why do they not say now that they will do their best to end intimidation and exile, and give us a sign that that has been achieved, resulting in a decline in the figures collected by projects such as Base 2?
3.35 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: At times, I wonder whether we live in the real world. We can study the matter dispassionately, although perhaps I am not the best person to do that. I have ministered for 19 years in north Belfast and have witnessed a mass movement of population which does not even compare with that in the city of Londonderry, which is changing scene entirely compared with other places. I have witnessed the process working in different ways. I have noticed people with removal vans, picking out houses to take over.
The Government of the day were dispassionate and acted strictly in monetary terms throughout. The compensation paid to a widow and her family who were put out of a house that they owned in Newport street, just after the death of her husband, was £10, the rating valuation of the house. It was worth much more.
I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) about the Belfast agreement. However, a response to the report was available in a month, whereas it took the Government of the day in the Northern Ireland Executive six months. Strictly speaking, the terms of reference for a report from Government should be about two months.
I understand that problems can arise that prevent action. However, we recognise the problem of thuggery and of people trying to change a community. At the heart of the issue is exiles, to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred—not only those who have had to leave a particular part of Londonderry to go across the river or have had to go to another part of Belfast, but those who live in the Republic of Ireland or Great Britain.
We discuss housing and education, but in the response there seems to be no understanding of the personal issues that affect people who cannot return to the place of their birth and the community from which they have been forcibly evicted. Some of the response is glib and reads as though formal arrangements were in place. I am not aware of any such arrangements.

153WH
I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that did something, but I am also aware of other organisations that claimed to do things for which money was paid. The then press officer of the general assembly, the late Donald Fraser, telephoned me on several occasions and said, "Martin, there is a genuine case. I've examined it and I've been in touch with different people to see whether temporary accommodation can be found, even across the water, to allow things to cool. They can do nothing but, because of contacts on different levels, I was able to help."
There was no formal arrangement then, and I query whether there is a formal arrangement now, although citizens advice bureaux in Northern Ireland have done remarkable work. On the other hand, in Great Britain, facile tribute has been paid to the CAB. Those who have found refuge here have usually achieved that through informal contacts. That causes me great concern.
Hon. Members have referred to Maranatha. It is an apolitical body that crosses different communities and works throughout the United Kingdom addressing various issues for the well-being of the community. It is appalled by the continuing lack of serious intervention by those in authority. That sends the clearest possible signal to the paramilitaries.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke gave us a definition of the paramilitaries. Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland might not support medics, but they give them jobs. They have done that through their brutalisation and injury of men, women and children. They are terrorist gangs or lawless thugs, rather than arms of the state. That is one reason why I refuse to accept talk of decommissioning. It is time that the Government realised that decommissioned arms are the weapons of the state, rather than the weapons of terrorist groups. The world says that it is united in defeating international and home-bred terrorism, but we must start speaking clearly and improve our use of terminology.
I share the concerns of Maranatha. It says:
"The continuation of punishment for the innocent and liberty for the guilty should surely be unacceptable in any civilised society."
Unfortunately, we are continuing to see that.
On Sunday, I gather, the Sunday World speculated that there has been, or might be, an act of decommissioning. I am not holding my breath for that, even during the forthcoming election, because although there may be a degree of camouflage to allow the paramilitaries to gain a little more credibility, my soundings from Tyrone and elsewhere show that there is no serious intention to hand over and destroy weapons, or at least put them beyond permanent use in a way that is verifiable.
I congratulate my colleagues on a remarkably thorough job in difficult circumstances. However, I regret that the Government have shown no urgency in responding to the continuing situation. One can only try to put oneself in the shoes of those who long to see their families at home, united and living in the community that they love. I appreciate that some people have managed to make a new life for themselves, but my knowledge of our people from all backgrounds tells me
154WH
that they have an ache for the old sod until their dying day. That has worked to the detriment of elements in Northern Ireland because of the romantic dreams of Irish Americans.
We should give a strong message to the Government, who have a responsibility to protect their citizens, that the time for vague generalisations in the hope that those will motivate certain folk to advance a little further along the democratic path has passed. A signal was sent out by the recent events in north Belfast. I regret that that is the case, and I have no wish to defend those events, which were committed on behalf of so-called loyalism, because I know that they are repugnant to the ordinary men and women of that community. However, some people will say, "Governments listen only if you show a little virility."
3.45 pm
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I agree with the Select Committee and the former Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), that the events under discussion are a blight on Northern Ireland. Everyone should condemn and oppose them.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in thanking the former Chairman of the Select Committee, Lord Brooke, for his excellent stewardship of the inquiry and the report, and for all the help and guidance that he gave me during my time on the Committee.
The Good Friday agreement obliges us to acknowledge those who have been the victims of violence, and to do all that we can to assist them. We must do that, if reconciliation is to achieved. With regard to that obligation, action is urgently required. Although hon. Members may hold different views about the approach that we should take, I hope that we unanimously agree that we should do everything in our power to bring the present situation to an end.
Those who seek to create segregated, homogeneous communities in Northern Ireland are fundamentally wrong. We should not permit paramilitaries to exert such control over people in specific neighbourhoods. As long as it is exerted, there will be no prospect of achieving genuine peace. We have seen in other places that have been blighted by conflict, such as the Balkans, Cyprus and South Africa before the peace agreement, that divided communities perpetuate fear and mistrust, and increase the risk that violence will continue and escalate, by producing further generations filled with bigotry and hate.
As part of its preparation for the report, the Select Committee visited South Africa. I was struck by the effort that was put into attempts at reconciliation in the immediate aftermath of the South African settlement. Although I acknowledge that it is not easy to achieve reconciliation, and I do not wish to deny the important work that has been done by people and organisations in Northern Ireland, more sustained action is needed. If there were ever any doubts about the need for decommissioning, what happened in South Africa in the aftermath of the peace process makes it clear that if we are to secure a long-term and genuine peace, the guns must be taken out of the situation. That is an important lesson, and we must learn it.

155WH
One of the tragedies of the attempts to segregate communities in Northern Ireland is that the people who are being divided and those who purport to speak for them have more in common than necessarily divides them. I have in mind particularly the recent horrendous scenes near Holy Cross school. If we stood back and looked at the social and economic make-up of the parties involved, we would see downtrodden communities on both sides, and people who desperately need economic investment and opportunities that would take their lives forward and give their children prospects for the future.
The energy that is used to keep those communities divided on narrow issues fails to make progress on the one thing that would advance all their lives: joint activity to deal with the massive, deep-rooted social and economic problems. We should recognise that those who have a vested interest in keeping the communities apart are not only perpetuating a feud, but denying the progress that would enable everyone to move forward. I cannot help but think that there must be a deliberate and cynical purpose behind such action.
When undertaking the inquiry, it was difficult to assess the real level of the problem. The official figures may be a gross underestimate. As Assistant Chief Constable McQuillan said in his evidence, there are times when the police think that some of the figures may be exaggerated. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, the police were clear that such activity was not as widespread as some may suggest. I am not trying to underestimate the seriousness of the problem, but it is confined to relatively few areas. When trying to understand the difficulty, we must recognise that it is not necessarily massive and widespread; nevertheless, it is extremely serious when it occurs.
There may be different motives on the part of those who claim to be victims of intimidation and those who claim to be carrying it out on behalf of paramilitaries. There may be other reasons why people say that paramilitaries are intimidating them. People may want cover for other activities in which they have been involved. They may be Walter Mitty characters, such as Mr. Vincent McKenna who, at one time, made great play of such issues. However, we now know that the way in which he chose to exploit the situation was a total falsehood on his part.
We must be conscious that others may behave in the same way. I am not saying that they do so deliberately, but at times we could question some of the activities of organisations that have tried to play useful roles. If an organisation is in receipt of a grant from the Government to tackle the problem, it has a vested interest in making it clear that it is a big problem, as that is the best way to have the grant renewed and to sustain its own activities. We should take into account the fact that, at times, there may be perverse incentives. I draw attention to Families Against Intimidation and Terror, especially when Vincent McKenna was associated with it.
I turn to the NIACRO Base 2 project. It became evident from our inquiry that at one stage the project became dependent on Government grants. Although it had clearly not had agreements with paramilitaries on individual cases, it acknowledged that it had entered into negotiations with paramilitaries. In a funny way,
156WH
that was well intentioned, but the consequence was that it lent legitimacy to the authority of people who were doing the thing that it was trying to stop.
Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman has referred twice to Vincent McKenna and to FAIT. I am aware of Mr. McKenna's fall from grace, but I am not aware of the defects in his work for FAIT to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Why does he distrust Mr. McKenna's work?
Mr. McCabe: The hon. Gentleman might have faith and confidence in the statements, works and actions of Mr. McKenna, but he is in a minority.
Mr. Barnes: Surely Vincent McKenna was a disaster as far as FAIT was concerned. That was a great pity, as it had such a fine record from its initiation. Nancy Gracey, who took the initiative and afterwards fell from grace, was a determined person. She helped to set up a viable organisation that attracted many responses in the House. It tackled the question of paramilitary intimidation, relating to exile or otherwise, in an important way. The first time that I met her was with a group of five people who had come over to organise escape routes for people out of Northern Ireland.
Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am happy to accept them. My point was that at times there might be perverse incentives.
NIACRO admitted that it had to enter into negotiations with paramilitaries. Whatever its good intentions, that had the effect of legitimising people against whom we should be opposed. Maranatha told us that it had experienced specific cases in which payments were made to prevent people being exiled. That is not the sort of the thing that we want to encourage.
Lembit Öpik: Before we move on, the hon. Gentleman's point on Families Against Intimidation and Terror needs to be recorded clearly. McKenna's conviction means neither that that organisation was ineffective, nor that his contribution to its work was unimportant; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Does he accept that the greatest breakthroughs have been made when the present Government, and the previous Government, negotiated with terrorists? Nevertheless, I accept that payments seem to be beyond the pale.
Mr. McCabe: I do not want us to spend the rest of the debate on this point. In no sense am I trying to attack FAIT. I am casting aspersions on Vincent McKenna, and most people will understand why. I was making the point that we should be careful about the perverse incentives that may occur through steps such as grant funding and organisations being drawn into contact during negotiations with paramilitaries. That might lend a false legitimacy to a situation that we condemn.
Mr. Barnes: I accept that I was one of the people who was conned by McKenna. I brought him to the House for various meetings and activities, and I felt tremendously let down over what was later discovered

157WH
about his activities. That cast a serious doubt on FAIT, but does not overshadow its earlier contributions through other methods.
Mr. McCabe: My hon. Friend's point is well made.
In the debate so far we have tended to concentrate, for obvious reasons, on the problems experienced by ordinary families or individuals, usually those in social housing areas. The evidence taken during the inquiry from the then Royal Ulster Constabulary highlighted the fact that another form of intimidation often resulting in exile is the intimidation of police, prison officers and other public officials. They are victims, and when we look for a way of tackling the problem, we should recognise that special consideration should be given to them.
Members of the Select Committee visited Dublin last week as part of our current inquiry. In respect of the Criminal Assets Bureau, I was struck by the decision to provide anonymity for those engaged in high-level activity to pursue criminals and people who may have paramilitary links. We can learn lessons from that about the kind of protection that we should afford public officials in Northern Ireland to spare them intimidation.
However serious the problem—I do not underestimate its seriousness—we must be careful not to lump everything together and say that it is all paramilitary intervention and therefore straightforward. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee, said that whole families are forced to move. It is true that the Committee uncovered evidence to support that, but Professor Kennedy also told us that the typical victim was a young working-class male. Such characteristics exactly mirror those of the typical victim of violence in Britain. We know that that occurs and should be stopped. We should not automatically assume that some characteristics do not also apply on the British mainland.
Mr. Barnes: Professor Kennedy said that that was the case up to 1994, but families were typical after that.
Mr. McCabe: As I have not marked the spot, I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge. I may return to that, because I am not sure that it is strictly accurate.
Some who are being intimidated, and some who are doing the intimidating, have characteristics that more closely mirror criminal activity than the characteristics that we might associate with paramilitary action. Maranatha expressed concern about the perverse fact that drug dealers who had been forced out of an area because of their activities were able to jump to the top of the housing queue. It argued that something is wrong with a situation in which we condemn paramilitary activity, yet someone who is despised by the community and forced out can benefit in that way. We know that that occurs. Maranatha also made it clear that some of the activities are about the settling of personal scores. That is old-fashioned, traditional gangsterism, although it might happen under the cloak of paramilitary activity. In any other area of society, we would regard it as conventional crime and make a major response to it.
Lembit Öpik: One may find that distasteful, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we accept the judgment
158WH
of the paramilitaries on those individuals and decide not to provide them with the support that we are discussing today, we commit ourselves to the same guilt—blaming those people for crimes for which they have not been formally tried?
Mr. McCabe: Either the hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point, or I have not made it sufficiently clearly. I am not saying that we should accept the judgment of the paramilitaries, but that, when we think about the support that should be given to the victims, we should recognise that a line can be drawn between genuine victims of paramilitary activity, for whom we should do everything we can to increase support, and other people who claim to be victims of paramilitary activity but against whom, on closer investigation, there is often much community support for some action to be taken.
I am not justifying paramilitary action, but most communities on the British mainland, as in Northern Ireland, would be happy to see drug dealers driven out. Many communities are happy to see antisocial families removed, and many want persistent petty criminals removed. We should not ignore the fact that that is occurring in this region. It is rather convenient, on occasion, for some people to take advantage of the very real horrors faced by genuine victims and use that as a cloak for the antisocial behaviour in which they are engaged. That came across time and again in the investigation.
We should try to draw a distinction between genuine victims of paramilitary activity and the other people to whom I am referring. A different response should be made to them. If we look elsewhere in Britain, what we want for people engaged in antisocial behaviour is clear, upfront, robust action from the police and authorities. If the police are to regain control and have the support of a local community where individuals are making the life of that community a misery, it would be good for us, as well as trying to tackle paramilitary influence, to diminish the opportunities that such individuals have to claim local support by tackling publicly and robustly the real problems that communities face. I hope that that clarifies my point.
The Government have promised some moves in that direction, but I do not know what progress has been made on the promises made to the Select Committee by Mr. Denis Haughey. He said that there would be a comprehensive set of measures in place by April 2002, which is recorded in the report. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that, but it will be interesting to know what progress has been made.
As other hon. Members have said, the way forward is to strengthen the hand of the police where intimidation and violence are taking place. It was interesting that Assistant Chief Constable McQuillan said in evidence not only that there were no-go areas, and that some areas are difficult to police, but that during the past four years there has been a steady rise in ordinary calls for assistance from the west Belfast area. In fact, he said that they had doubled in the past four years. Underneath all the tensions and difficulties that we are encountering, there must be growing support and commitment from ordinary people for the police. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain a doubling of

159WH
routine calls asking for police assistance from an area such as west Belfast. We have an opportunity to build on that through the new police boards, and I want to see that happen.
Finally, I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire for an anti-intimidation unit. With respect to the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), I do not think that it would be an intermediate bureaucracy. I hope it does not send his blood pressure racing too much, but when I was in Dublin recently, I was struck by the effectiveness and simplicity of the Criminal Assets Bureau. It brought together the key personnel from key agencies to allow a concerted onslaught on specific crimes. That seems to be what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire had in mind, and it is something that we should be calling for, not resisting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Before we proceed, it might help hon. Members if I inform them that I shall call the Minister to wind up not later than 4.50 pm. It is desirable that I call a Member from each of the main opposition parties for an equal amount of time before that. Several hon. Members want to speak, and I am anxious that every party should have an opportunity to be represented. Although I have no power to limit speeches, hon. Members might want to bear that in mind when balancing their contributions.
4.11 pm
David Burnside: I begin on the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) linked to my earlier intervention. If the crime taskforce chaired by the Minister proposes new legislation and new co-ordination against organised crime, which I believe is being discussed by the Northern Ireland Office, I am all in favour of that. I do not want any misunderstanding on that point.
I shall be as brief as possible, so that other hon. Members can make their contributions. Three months after being elected, I informed the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), who was in the United States at the time, that as defence spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, I was coming to his constituency to visit the troubled areas of White City, Limestone road and Ardoyne. Everyone has seen the problems of those areas on television. I welcome the debate and the report's highlighting of the amount of intimidation that has taken place.
I had not been in the Limestone road outside Mount Collyer school since I taught there in 1973. I had left Queen's university, did not have a job and did a bit of supply teaching, which was possible then. Mount Collyer was a wonderful secondary school where James Galway was educated, and it is now the Curry primary school.
I went into the grounds and walked across from Mount Collyer into the interface on the Protestant side: the Tiger's Bay end of the Limestone road. I was gobsmacked, and taken aback by the amount of intimidation that is taking place in Northern Ireland's working class communities. It has never been worse during the 30 years of the troubles. When I taught at that school, it was a disciplined school. The area could be called working class, or middle class closer to the Antrim road, but it was a decent, good and respectable area where Protestant and Catholics lived.
160WH
The Minister has responded recently with security measures along that interface on the Limestone road. The Protestant homes in the area have steel plates at the back because low velocity shots are fired down the alleyways, and petrol bombs are thrown. What are the working class people asking for? They want security walls that divide communities. There is something seriously wrong on the ground in north Belfast. I sympathise with my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, North: he has major problems to deal with in that constituency. I have similar problems in my own constituency.
There is no respect for law and order on the ground among the loyalist paramilitaries in the big Protestant working class estates and the republican paramilitaries, who still exist. The Provisional IRA is fully organised, armed and involved in threats, crime, robbery and intimidation. It takes money from drug dealers, and disciplines them only when they do not pay their commission. The loyalist paramilitaries deal in drugs at a serious level. Crime, intimidation, robbery and theft exist at every level of society.
We keep talking about two communities in Northern Ireland, but in some ways there is another—the working class areas that are not being properly policed. They never will be, under the present management of policing by the Government. To police those areas, we need policing on the ground and community policing. There are only three things that matter in policing: morale, manpower and intelligence.
Morale was stripped out of the Royal Ulster Constabulary by its treatment post-Patten, which can be seen from the number of officers turning up for duty. Manpower has been reduced to a level that is totally inadequate to meet the terrorist threat and crime levels. The intelligence ability of the police service is seriously under attack by republicans—that is especially true of special branch, a particular target.
We must start to rebuild policing in Northern Ireland to attack the Mafia culture that applies throughout both communities in a non-sectarian way. There is a Mafia society in Northern Ireland and disillusionment on the ground because of the lack of law and order. Because of the agreement and the way in which it is being implemented—the deals being done, the nudges and winks about another amnesty and so forth—concessions are being made to the criminals and terrorists.
The present Minister of Education in the Assembly has not even regretted his activities in the IRA. In 1972, the same year as Bloody Sunday, 34 people were killed in Londonderry. What police investigations are taking place regarding Martin McGuinness—the 2OC, as he admitted to the Saville inquiry? There is no respect for politics in Northern Ireland when a system operates that disregards law and order.
The Government had better get their act together and rebuild morale within the RUC, because of the intimidation taking place on the ground. That intimidation is of Catholics in some of the council estates in my constituency and other parts of the Province. It is time that it was dealt with by more effective policing, stronger in numbers, intelligence and morale. I welcome the report and the publicity. The

161WH
exiles need to be given help. Publicity brings pressure to bear on the paramilitary organisations that are intimidating them.
The leadership of the terrorist organisation sits in Stormont—Sinn Fein. The loyalist paramilitary leadership is well known. Let them take action. Let them apologise, send military directives down through their organisations and adhere to the admirable Mitchell principles. All terrorist organisations should be forced to adhere to them.
I welcome the report. I hope that it gets a great deal of publicity and helps those internal exiles in Northern Ireland. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) when he mentioned Bombay street. The biggest transfer of population during the troubles occurred when 16,000 Protestants unfortunately had to move across the maiden city. We all find such transfers of Protestants and Catholics—because of intimidation and threat—unacceptable. That is not the sort of society that we wish to look forward to in the future.
Mr. McGrady: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Having indicated that I would give way, I was then constrained by my own lack of evidence. Of course, I disagree with what he said.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In my inability to read the clock backwards, I chopped half an hour off the debate. I shall be calling the Minister at 5.20 pm.
4.19 pm
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and commend the Committee for its work in producing the report, which is a welcome contribution to the debate on a crucial subject. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Brooke.
I also commend the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who, in addition to his work on the Select Committee, has sought for several years to highlight the issue in the House. I hope that he feels that the report is a valuable contribution to achieving his objective of seeing the exiles return to their homes in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I wish to commend the work of Maranatha, with whom I have had the pleasure of working in difficult circumstances; my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the group earlier. I have been involved in cases in which young people in my constituency have been intimidated out of their homes by paramilitary organisations. Like my hon. Friend, I found that there was a lack of Government response and, as a Member of Parliament, I went to enormous lengths to help young people in such situations by getting the agencies involved and trying to co-ordinate a response. However, there was no coordination, and response was lacking. That has been clearly brought out in the Select Committee's report, and the Government's response is inadequate.
Figures produced recently in NIACRO's annual report indicate that, in my constituency, there were 23 cases of intimidation of individuals in 1999; that rose
162WH
to 26 cases in 2000. The trend across Northern Ireland is upward. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the figures for Bangor rose from 21 in 1999 to 29 in 2000. I could give many other examples.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that we were in a period of transition and that we should expect some continuing violence. Are we to expect that intimidation should increase, when we were told that we would see an end to paramilitary violence? Intimidation is a form of violence.
Mr. McCabe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can break his figures down any further. Would he concede that some of the violence is internal paramilitary feuding and that, sadly, it might be reasonable to expect some of that at the beginning of a peace process?
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman's point may be fair. Unfortunately, I do not have a breakdown of the statistics. I do not dispute that internal feuds of paramilitary groups may be included. Nevertheless, in any circumstances, it is worrying that the trend is upward.
At the heart of the peace process, as it has become known, are the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred to them earlier. I remind the Committee that two of the principles have particular relevance. The first is:
"To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations".
We are not in negotiations now, but the principle still applies. Parties who signed up to the agreement were to renounce violence and the use of violence, and intimidation is a form of violence.
The second relevant principle is:
"To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."
We know that punishment attacks are related to the case of the exiles. Therefore, I believe that some of the parties who signed up or gave their consent to the agreement are in breach of those principles. They are also in breach of the principles when they fail to act to deal with the problem of intimidation.
I listened carefully to the Minister when she argued that the Government could not influence the paramilitary organisations, as they were not parties to the agreement. Perhaps she will correct that point in her speech. She referred specifically to the influence that can be brought to bear on paramilitary organisations. The Government can bring an influence to bear on those organisations, as can the parties linked to them. After all, the concessions that were made during the agreement, and which have flowed from it, were designed to bring influence to bear on paramilitary groups, presumably to assist them to make the transition from violence and terrorism to peace and democracy.
One is concerned about the extent to which the Government are using their influence. They could, and should, do more. I hope that the Minister would not seek to make a distinction between the paramilitary

163WH
groups and the political parties that represent them with regard to the influence that the Government could bring to bear. I am not suggesting that she is seeking to do so, but I remind her that the Prime Minister said that the paramilitary groups and the political parties were inextricably linked. Pressure can therefore be brought to bear on the paramilitary organisations through those political parties. That is long overdue.
The paramilitary organisations are not reciprocating as they should in return for the major concessions that have been made to them. There is evidence that they have continued with intimidation and exiling individuals and families from Northern Ireland. In the report's conclusion, Professor Liam Kennedy stated:
"Turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the problem of paramilitary domination of certain areas, including the practice of exiling, is a gross betrayal of some of the most vulnerable, powerless and disadvantaged members of our society".
That is the case. The Government and political parties have a responsibility to deal with the issue. However, the Select Committee's report highlights the fact that it is not being dealt with properly. I am not impressed by the official Government response, which was:
"Formalising the development of policy and the co-ordination of support activities, as the Committee advocates, would risk sending a signal to paramilitaries that, by working to alleviate the consequences of their actions, the Government was tacitly allowing them to continue with impunity."
I do not follow that argument. People often find themselves in circumstances that are not of their making, and if they need help, they should have it.
A potential link was mentioned between the proposed amnesty for terrorists on the run and the exiles. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire rightly pointed out that we couldn't equate the two, as one deals with those who are on the run from justice, and the other deals with those who are on the run from injustice. I would be concerned about such an equation, and we must be careful.
The proposed amnesty bears brief consideration. As the hon. Member for South Antrim correctly pointed out, it goes to the heart of a deep sense of injustice that is felt by many people in Northern Ireland about how the Government are handling the process and about the implementation of the agreement. We must consider the contrast between the Government's approach to those people who are on the run and the lack of consideration given to exiles.
We are talking about people who are on the run from justice: people such as Dermot McNally who has been on the run for a number of years. He is one of 38 IRA prisoners who escaped from the Maze prison. Robert "Fats" Campbell is a member of the M60 gang who escaped from the Crumlin road jail in 1981, having been sentenced to life in his absence for the murder of SAS Captain Westmacott. Nessan Quinlivan escaped from the Maze in 1983 while serving a 25-year sentence. Liam Averill escaped from the Maze dressed as a woman during a Christmas party held for prisoners' families. He had been sentenced to life for the IRA murder of two innocent protestants in Garvagh in 1996. Owen Carron, the former Sinn Fein Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, is on the run having skipped bail and successfully overcome attempts by the UK Government to have him extradited to face trial in Northern Ireland. Rita O'Hare, who was part of the
164WH
Sinn Fein talks team that went to America in the early and mid 1990s, is wanted for questioning about IRA attacks in west Belfast. Again, this is evidence that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked.
Charlie Caufield is wanted by the police in Northern Ireland for questioning about the massacre on Remembrance Sunday in 1987 in Enniskillen when 11 innocent people lost their lives at the hands of the Provisional IRA. Those are the kind of people to whom the Government are considering granting an amnesty. They are on the run from justice; some have not even faced the courts to account for their evil deeds.
What are the Government doing for the exiles, many of whom are innocent people who have been driven from their homes and from Northern Ireland? Are a few lines saying that the Government are not sure whether they should co-ordinate support activities for these people the best that we can get? What efforts are the Government making to use the leverage that they have through the concessions that they are making to the paramilitary organisations to get them to end their intimidation and violence and end the exile of people from Northern Ireland? We are entitled to answers to those questions.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire suggested an anti-intimidation unit. I would go further. Some time ago, I proposed the establishment of a victims commission in Northern Ireland. We have a commission for just about everything else in Northern Ireland, but we do not have one for the people who have suffered through 30 years of terrorist violence. If we had a victims commission, the hon. Member's proposal could be incorporated into it. The exiles are victims of paramilitary activity. The Government should consider granting funding to establish a proper commission to co-ordinate and meet the needs of the victims of violence in Northern Ireland, which I and others have been urging for some time.
This is an important issue. It is about justice. It is also about free speech. We hear a lot today about human rights. This issue is about the right to live in peace in one's home with one's family free from fear. It is fundamentally about the kind of society that we want to create in Northern Ireland. In essence, it is about breaking the grip of paramilitarism that rules through fear in many communities in Northern Ireland.
In saying that, I will be painted as a hardliner, but is it hardline to stand up for decent people who cannot through fear speak for themselves? Is it hardline to speak out against the paramilitaries who think that they rule the roost in many parts of Northern Ireland? I do not think so. The hardliners are the people who put on the balaclavas. They go with their guns, baseball bats and nail bombs. They rule through fear, intimidation and violence. They are the hardliners in our society, and I make no apology for standing against them.
I urge the Government to take the issue seriously. If the report and this debate do nothing but ensure that they take the issue more seriously than hitherto and that they take more effective action to deal with people's rights, we will have achieved something. I hope that the Government are listening.
4.35 pm
Mr. Nigel Dodds: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members share my view that it is outrageous and deplorable for anyone to be intimidated out of their home, community or family, and that that should be condemned whatever the circumstances. We have heard about various categories of people who have been intimidated and exiled from their homes for a variety of reasons, but whatever the circumstances, nothing justifies someone taking the law into their own hands and putting people out of their homes.
An hon. Member said that people had been intimidated and exiled and that, in many cases, the community would not only turn a blind eye but would welcome that. We have undoubtedly come across such cases, but as democrats and believers in the rule of law, we have to say that that practice should not be tolerated or accepted. It needs to be understood and accepted as a reality, but it should not be approved or condoned.
That is why I am often worried about the way in which the Government have treated many paramilitary organisations, and leading individuals in them, on both sides. In many cases, the Government have lent not just an air of credibility but real credibility to people who take the law into their own hands and undermine the forces of law and order and those of us who work within the law and the usual democratic and judicial processes.
This is an important debate. I share the hope expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that it will receive publicity and that people will focus on the issue. I know that he and others have taken steps to ensure that there is publicity, and I hope that that will bring some pressure to bear on those who are responsible for the exiling and intimidation.
Members of the House and those further field who are ignorant—sometimes wilfully so—of what is happening in Northern Ireland sometimes perpetrate the myth that such activity no longer takes place and that, as a result of the peace process, life in Northern Ireland has changed so greatly that we should not dwell on these issues. There is a notion that we are being negative and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, hardline when we focus on the activities of paramilitary organisations, and the fact that they and their arsenals are still entirely intact and they are actively recruiting more people to their ranks under the noses of Government, the police and security forces. If that is a hardline position, the vast majority of Unionist people, certainly in Northern Ireland, are now hardline. In fact, we are mainstream when we speak of these matters, because the reality on the ground is that paramilitary organisations on both sides are still active in recruiting, targeting and intimidating people. They still hold sway on many housing estates and in many areas in north Belfast, other parts of Belfast and other areas of the Province.
When I listen to people speaking, it is often clear that they either do not visit Northern Ireland or, if they do, they turn the Nelsonian blind eye to these issues. Everything is supposed to be wonderful and tremendous with the peace process bringing dividends, yet many of my constituents do not recognise a peace process at all. They see a process that rewards terrorists and
166WH
strengthens paramilitary organisations' control over their areas. The terrorists are treated in a way that politicians democratically elected at the ballot box are not. Their voices and views are heard and responded to with more intensity and alacrity than those of democratically elected politicians.
I am pleased that we are having this debate and that we are focusing on problems which, despite the ceasefires and the Belfast agreement, are continuing. As some hon. Members have observed, problems are getting worse in many respects. As stated in paragraph 18 of the report, Maranatha maintains that
"many expulsions and punishment beatings go unannounced and unreported".
I know from my constituency work of people in north Belfast who are afraid to report what is happening to them to the police. They are worried that they will end up on the receiving end of summary justice from these organisations and, worse, that if they reveal why they are being forced out of their homes, their family or friends will also suffer from intimidation.
North Belfast faces continuing difficulties with intimidation and exiling. As I said in the Northern Ireland Assembly recently—wearing my hat as the Minister for Social Development with responsibility for housing—the figures from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive reveal that, in December, only a proportion of intimidation cases originated in north Belfast. The majority of cases are outside Belfast altogether. It is a serious problem. Many people are being intimidated out of their homes as a result of paramilitary activity and threats, and it has spread far beyond north Belfast, affecting many parts of the Province.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) talked about a return to normality and acknowledged that that was not happening as quickly as he hoped. Far from moving towards normality, the reality is that positions are becoming more and more entrenched. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire was right to say that division and separation have never been as bad. The causes cannot be divorced from the political process that has been under way since 1993, which created a legacy of bitterness and alienation.
Decent, law-abiding people feel that an agenda is at work to appease men of violence, particularly if that violence is directed towards the City of London or the mainland. It is no wonder that there is so much despair. In my public life and having represented north Belfast for 15 years as a local councillor, an Assembly Member and more recently in this House, I have never witnessed or heard at first hand such feelings of despair, alienation and anger at the way in which paramilitary and terrorist organisations have been allowed to set the agenda. Those organisations have seen their demands met and their personnel rewarded, even with positions in government, while the needs of ordinary people on both sides have been relegated beneath the need to pander to terrorists and their fellow travellers.
We are debating intimidation and the exile of people from their homes but, as other Members have said, that is just one facet of what goes on in some areas. We have continuous reports of so-called punishment beatings and shootings, and of people being verbally threatened and having their windows put in and their cars smashed up. Much of that goes unreported, because people are afraid of the consequences.

167WH
No one should be under the illusion that, as a result of the peace process, we are somehow moving towards normality in Northern Ireland. I have yet to hear an indication from any paramilitary organisation that it will move to a state of complete disarmament or even begin to dismantle its structure. I hear all sorts of demands for the Army to be taken out of Northern Ireland, security installations to be dismantled, and the police to be reformed, yet I read reports in the newspapers that the various paramilitary organisations are stepping up their recruitment, increasing their activities and focusing on certain issues. Even when the police were reformed, there was little or no reciprocation. The Government have not dealt with that at all.
Members have referred to various types of intimidation. Clearly, there has been a major problem in north Belfast with the feud in the loyalist community, which has resulted in a major dislocation of population in certain parts of my constituency. That has not helped in trying to deal with some of the problems that already existed. There has been a campaign against the police, prison officers and others in Northern Ireland. One of my constituents was recently intimidated out of his home. He had lived for 20 years in a part of north Belfast, but one night a petrol bomb was thrown through his front window by a so-called loyalist organisation. That is an absolutely deplorable and outrageous event. His only crime was that he was a member of the police.
I know prison officers who have been likewise intimidated, and people have come into my office who are being forced out because they have been branded as guilty of antisocial behaviour or criminal activity. The people who brand them are themselves engaged in massive drugs and extortion rackets and all sorts of criminal activity, and are well known to the police.
A couple of weeks ago, a lady came to my constituency office to report that she was the victim of intimidation. She had been told that she must get out of a loyalist area because she had run foul of some family member of the people who were intimidating her. It was simply a case of them saying, "We don't want you here anymore. Get out." The lady's family, including five children who were all settled in school, were making a contribution to society, yet thugs forced them out.
People are forced out by intimidation on sectarian grounds, to which the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) and others referred. I could take hon. Members to houses in Twaddell avenue, Gunnell hill, Hallidays road and Serpentine gardens in north Belfast, where people were living three months ago, but which are now vacant. I know a family with three children who lived in Gunnell hill for 15 years who have been moved out because they are being harassed and intimated on sectarian grounds. Despite a peace fence having gone up behind them and our representations, there is an agenda to force Protestants out of the White City area of north Belfast and, unfortunately, they have gone. Two families in Twaddell avenue, one of whom has lived there for 40 years and been through the worst of what is euphemistically called "the troubles", have had enough and are moving out.
That is horrendous; it is a despicable situation, but that is what is happening in Northern Ireland, in Belfast, in 2002. It is four years since the Belfast agreement and
168WH
eight years since the first ceasefire, which was interrupted by the IRA's decision to go back temporarily to murdering people, including two police officers in Lurgan. Indeed, the IRA attempted to murder me as I visited my sick son in the Royal Victoria hospital, and injured a policeman in the process. That is all conveniently forgotten.
Sinn Fein-IRA Members talk about their concern for children. Mr. McGuinness is Minister of Education, but he refused totally to condemn that incident in the Royal Victoria hospital when shots were fired through incubators. Let us realise whom we are dealing with when we deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. I am speaking about the reality for many of my constituents in Belfast, North. People are today being intimidated.
Concessions have been mentioned. Why do people turn to paramilitaries when it comes to dealing with antisocial behaviour? Many politicians in Northern Ireland are grassroots-based and we go to a lot of meetings of tenants' and residents' associations. I was at one the other night in Twaddell avenue and heard at first hand that the police cannot cope. People said that there were no police available in the numbers required to deal with antisocial behaviour such as crime and burglary, never mind enough to provide the security that would give people the peace of mind to live in interface areas. That is what people are saying.
I meet Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan almost every week to discuss security issues in north Belfast, and I have always found him helpful in trying to deal with those matters. He and other senior police admit that they are in difficulty because of the lack of resources and because the police force is so demoralised that many of them are off sick. The Government must address those issues and face up to the fact that the way the police have been treated has exacerbated the situation.
I reiterate the appeal that I made to the Minister yesterday. At a time when we are facing all those problems, especially in my constituency, the York road and Greencastle police stations, the only two police stations in lower north Belfast which cover the Whitewell road, White City area and the Tiger's Bay, Newington area—the two areas with the worst trouble in north Belfast—are scheduled for closure. The police admit that that will not result in extra resources being made available, but will simply make up for accounting losses in the police budget.
What sort of signal will it send to my constituents and to ordinary, decent, law-abiding people if the decision to close those police stations proceeds? It will lead them to the conclusion that, if the police cannot protect them, only one group of people will. I do not want that to happen, and decent, law-abiding people do not want that to happen. It is the last thing that they want, but they say to me and I am saying on their behalf that steps must be taken to ensure that the police and security forces do not abandon people by ceasing their commitment to on-the-ground, community policing.
I endorse what other hon. Members have said, especially the hon. Member for South Antrim, about the process on concessions that is under way. It is little wonder that some people believe that they can get away with such activities when, far from being subjected to sanctions, they receive concession after concession. The

169WH
Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Executive refuses to endorse the police and refuses even to ask people who have information that might lead to the apprehension of the Omagh bombers to provide that information. What sort of signal does that send to those who say that they will take the law into their own hands? A Government Minister, who is a self-confessed IRA commander, refuses to support the police and will not even ask people to give information to the police. It is little wonder that we have such a sense of lawlessness.
I have listened with concern to the notion about the amnesty that the Government may introduce to allow on-the-run terrorists to escape justice. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley named some of those who may benefit from that legislation. I have difficulty with the notion that some acts are distasteful and wrong but may be acceptable as part of a trade-off. I listened to some hon. Members expressing concern about an amnesty and then saying that it might be acceptable to allow on-the-run terrorists to escape justice if there was a move by the Provisional IRA, Sinn Fein-IRA and others to lift the bar on exiles returning to Northern Ireland.
On one hand, it is suggested that if illegal, terrorist activity is given up, the Government will in turn provide a reward by throwing justice into the gutter and allowing on-the-run terrorists to escape scot free. That is not much of a trade-off, and not many people in Northern Ireland believe that it is. Governments should not be involved in trade-offs. If the Government are so minded and other parties are minded to support them, that would be seen in Northern Ireland for what it is and would reinforce the notion that the Government are engaged in a process with paramilitaries and terrorists who equate their illegal, terrorist, immoral and filthy acts with what the Government are doing. There is no equivalent and there should not be such trade-offs. To engage in such a process is reprehensible and brings the Government and democracy into disrepute—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Lembit Öpik.
5 pm
Lembit Öpik: I apologise to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for being a little late. I heard only a third of his speech. No doubt had I been able to listen to all of it, I would have enjoyed it three times more. I apologise if I make some points that have been made already. As hon. Members will be aware, I was detained by the simultaneous discussion in Committee of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) speak. He always brings such helpful insight to the debate. He makes people understand the two issues involved, as do other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.
I thank members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for compiling such a clear and concise document. I pay particular tribute to Dennis Wigley of Maranatha, to the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and to the voluntary organisations that have over the years done so much to assist those who have been intimidated out of their homes and sometimes out of their homeland by the paramilitaries.
170WH
Article 6 of the European convention on human rights states:
"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing…by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
If we allow ourselves to countenance paramilitaries invoking summary justice and justifying it on the basis that they are maintaining law and order, we are not only violating the principle of article 6, but guilty of not trying to enforce law and order in Northern Ireland. However much individuals involved in such intimidation attempt to justify it, we need to recognise that normality in Northern Ireland will not be achieved until the rule of law prevails—regardless of how frustrating that may seem to some individuals who probably sincerely believe that actions causing individuals to relocate are justified in the interests of their community.
Furthermore, those individuals who we are told violate the interests of the community do not represent the bulk of those who are intimidated out of their homes. The police have identified six principal categories of victims: victims of sectarian intimidation; victims of paramilitary feuds; members of the security forces, prison officers and public officials; alleged criminals; those who have disputes with paramilitaries; and victims of racial intimidation.
Maranatha maintains that many of the victims whom it has assisted had no involvement with paramilitary or criminal organisations. We must recognise that many of the people who have been intimidated are in the category of individuals described by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes): on the run from injustice. That is a more effective description than on the run from justice.
Exiles and their families suffer many consequences, but on-going trauma requires extensive medical, psychiatric and counselling support. Individuals who cause victims to become exiles must recognise that they are almost creating a counter-productive environment. Sometimes they cause people not to face the alleged crimes that they have committed. Furthermore, they cause great suffering to individuals who have done nothing. Therefore, we must recognise the importance of formal agencies in order to address the difficulties that are experienced by those who have been exiled.
I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Executive to the Select Committee's report and, especially, the reference to an action plan to outline commitments to meet the needs of victims. I also look forward to reading the Hansard account of the debate on exile proposed by the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, which is planned for Tuesday.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said that although some victims are genuine, some people masquerade as victims. There must be a process of law to determine the difference between them. Until individuals have gone through such a process of law, we must adhere to the British principle of justice that a person is innocent until proven guilty, however galling that may seem. The consequences of the paramilitaries' efforts to exile individuals should inevitably lead to support, and may be a barrier to ensuring that the justice that the paramilitaries mete out in an ad hoc way is achieved.

171WH
I was somewhat disappointed by the support that the Government gave to the report. They said that they are
"satisfied that the support necessary for victims of intimidation resettling in Great Britain is in place…Formalising the development of policy and the co-ordination of support activities, as the Committee advocates, would risk sending a signal to paramilitaries that, by working to alleviate the consequences of their actions, the Government was tacitly allowing them to continue with impunity."
That is like saying that the Government tacitly endorse road accidents and domestic violence by putting accident and emergency departments in hospitals. Accident and emergency departments exist because accidents and violence happen, despite our efforts to prevent that. Despite the Government's best efforts, the exile of people continues. Until that stops, it is unreasonable to punish the exiles by not giving them an efficient support structure. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that.
We require a three fold approach. First, we need an initial focus point that victims can contact after they have been subjected to intimidation or attack. That could put victims in touch with an appropriate organisation in Northern Ireland or Great Britain that could establish their needs and circumstances.
Secondly, we need to increase awareness of the services that are available to people who are forced from their homes. Such people must know where to turn in order to get specific help. It is difficult to define the scale of the problem. However, if the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is correct to say that 3,000 families are in exile, and if that were factored up to the United Kingdom's population, it would represent the equivalent of 120,000 families in exile, which would be more than 250,000 people. Therefore, the problem affects a substantial proportion of people who live in Northern Ireland, and we can assume that the support services would have a significant work load if they were based in Northern Ireland. They must be resourced effectively, although such resources should be available on the mainland.
Thirdly, we must ensure that we support the police in order to encourage communities in Northern Ireland to gather behind the forces of law and order. That would allow us to collect more accurate figures. Crucially, the replacement of the self-appointed paramilitary organisations by the police services would do much to remove the problem per se.
I add my voice to an appeal that we have already heard during the debate. The individuals who are responsible for guiding the organisations must think seriously about supporting the police of Northern Ireland in providing a legally binding solution that is acceptable to all communities.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who said that the Government have the capacity to engage with the groups. It is evident that Sinn Fein and the IRA are connected. That is not a secret. The Ulster Defence Association, which has been disfranchised to an extent by the decline of its political wing, has the opportunity to re-engage in the political process as a result of the work of the Ulster political research group. Frankie Gallagher is actively involved in that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Quentin Davies.
5.10 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate the Select Committee on choosing this pertinent subject, and for doing such a thorough job on it. This has been a high-quality debate. There have been some powerful speeches, especially from hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Province, and who speak from experience about its problems. Those speeches have highlighted the importance of the subject under discussion.
There is bound to be continuing doubt about exactly how many people have been involuntarily exiled. However, it is clear that the problem is significant and that it continues to this day. There are two types of involuntary exile and displacement. First, there is the displacement of entire communities—the attempt to push people of a different religious background out of an area. As the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, sadly, Northern Ireland has a long tradition of that.
Secondly, there is the phenomenon of gang bosses—terrorist bosses—enforcing their hideous discipline by terrorising the people of their own communities. They decide who is allowed to live there, and they dispense the atrocious punishments about which we have heard so many descriptions. The more I read the report and listened to the descriptions, the more I thought that the situation is exactly comparable to that in Palermo or Chicago during the worst periods of Mafia domination. Parts of Northern Ireland are suffering from mafioso justice and terror, and it is of concern to all hon. Members that that continues to be the case.
I have one reservation about the report's recommendations, although the Minister will be pleased to hear that I support the Government's response to the Select Committee—and in particular the response of the Northern Ireland Office. Although I understand the reasons that have motivated the Committee to suggest that a new mechanism—to use the Committee's term—should be put in place to handle the problems that are created when people are involuntarily expelled from their homes, that approach might present dangers.
I do not want to reject entirely the introduction of such a mechanism, but it should be given careful thought, because our priority must be to do nothing that might suggest for one moment that we are acquiescing to these terrorist—or Mafia—bosses by accepting that they have a right to expel people, or by making the procedure to handle such expulsions a normal part of life in Northern Ireland. We must be very careful not to do anything that might give that impression, but we must do something to attack the underlying problem and to solve it.
As I have said in the House, we must implement the community policing provisions of the Patten report. That report has been justifiably criticised on many grounds, but its community policing aspects are important and, sadly, the Government have not sought to implement them.
"Community policing" is an ambiguous term. What I mean by it is what Patten meant by it, which is neighbourhood policing. Normal policing must be restored in Northern Ireland. I want police officers to return to the beat so that they can get to know the people in their area, and to start to work with initiative rather

173WH
than just respond to situations. There is no hope unless we can somehow make progress in reinserting such policing into society in Northern Ireland.
That relates directly to the issue of resources, and is why I continue to press the Government, as I did yesterday, about their intentions on the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland. In their heart, the Government take seriously the need to make a success of policing in Northern Ireland. It is therefore crazy that the service should be run down. Yesterday, the Government put the onus for a decision on the Chief Constable. I think that I know what his response will be, but we must remove the uncertainty.
We should also reconsider the availability of witness and citizen protection schemes in Northern Ireland. It is clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee in column 81 by the Assistant Chief Constable, Alan McQuillan, that the only systematic protection scheme applies to people who are known as "key persons". That is a great problem. Any citizen has the right to be protected if they are in danger of their lives, whether they are a judge, a politician, an important or unimportant person. Police resources in Northern Ireland are inadequate, but protection should be an absolute priority in the activities of the police and a first call on their resources, whatever those resources are.
I recently spoke to a minicab driver in Belfast who had been hijacked by paramilitaries. His car had been used in a shooting, but he never reported it because he was more frightened of retaliation by the terrorists who had taken his car than of the justice system. He laughed when I asked him whether there was any witness protection system from which he could benefit. His laughter was justifiable, which is sad. There is no hope if that continues, as there is a vicious circle.
If we want to catch terrorists, we must ensure that people are prepared, and brave enough, to stand up to them. We must ensure that they are encouraged to do so, and can do so without believing that their lives and those of their families are at risk. Unless something is done and real investment is made, we will get nowhere. The Government are prepared to spend £2,500 a day on their counsel in the Saville inquiry. That would provide a lot of police protection, and might save some lives. I hope that they think that that would be a better use of their money than paying Mr. Mansfield QC, or others of their favourite lawyers.
We must persuade those who say that they have given up terrorism and taken the road of democracy to live up to their declarations by ensuring that such dreadful evil comes to a rapid halt in the communities where they have influence. The Minister has heard me say so many times in so many different contexts in the past few months that there must be a quid pro quo where the Government are making concessions. Concessions must not be forthcoming, and must not be continued, unless there is an appropriate response from those groups that demand them or have benefited from them. It is as simple as that. It is vital that a new rigour of that sort enters Government thinking before too long.
The Minister said that it was not possible to link an end to paramilitary intimidations and the amnesty to on-the-run terrorists, to which the Government appear
174WH
to be so wrongly committed, as such terrorists came in so many categories. Some had accepted the Belfast agreement, and some had not. That is not a problem. One could say that the only terrorists that benefited from the amnesty were those associated with organisations that appeared to be observing their commitments. I do not believe that any move by terrorists or former terrorists would be sufficient to justify the enormous concession of an amnesty.
The amnesty is contrary to what the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said disingenuously at the Dispatch Box yesterday. That is not required by the Belfast agreement. It has nothing to do with it. It is a gratuitous and unnecessary concession offered by the Government without any linkage, and, therefore, entirely irresponsibly. It seems wrong to consider such a concession except as part and parcel of the completion of decommissioning and the end of armed struggle and terrorist activity, including intimidation—an unpleasant aspect of terrorist activity about which we have had a memorable debate this afternoon.
5.19 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I pay respect to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and Committee members for the Committee's work and the quality of the report, as I do to Lord Brooke. Both the hon. Gentleman and Lord Brooke are parliamentarians with great experience in the field. We take their comments on the subject seriously and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we listen to what they and the Select Committee have to say.
I stand before hon. Members and hang my head. To be criticised for the content of the Government's response is well and good and part of the democratic process of debate. To be criticised for such a long delay in the Government's response is perfectly valid criticism, too, and I can say little in defence other than refer to the general election, a new ministerial team and the fact that, as I hope hon. Members will accept, it has been an especially difficult year for a new ministerial team to come into office. I hope that the Select Committee will accept that humble apology and my undertaking that we shall not allow such a lapse to happen again. I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will accept that that long delay does not reflect a lack of interest on the Government's part, as I hope to show him and his colleagues in my response today and in further communications with hon. Members.
A comment was made about Sinn Fein not being present. I associate myself and the Government with those who have regretted the fact that Sinn Fein Members have not even taken the opportunity to sit beyond the Bar and listen to the debate. We hope that their staff have taken note and used the facilities that are now available to them to listen to us and that they will read our deliberations.
It has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. It will not be possible for me in 10 minutes to do justice to both the debate and the report on this important subject. However, I shall try to respond to as many of the points that have been made as possible. It is beholden on me to respond to a few.

175WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) pressed me on the improvements that had been promised by Minister Haughey in the devolved Administration. The office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister has completed its public consultation on its strategy for co-ordinating the Northern Ireland Office's response to victims' needs. I cannot say when the strategy will be published, which is obviously a matter for that office, but it is being finalised.
In an eloquent and passionate speech, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)—I am sorry that I shall not be able to pay tribute to all hon. Members who participated in this interesting debate—urged us to do more in bearing down on paramilitaries engaged in such unacceptable activity. I refer him to the comments that the Prime Minister made yesterday, at column 206 of Hansard. No one could hear or read those comments without hearing the clear message that we use every opportunity at our disposal to press those who have influence to use that influence to make paramilitary organisations desist. I did not want to imply in my intervention that because that is difficult we are not making the effort.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley also pressed me on the question of the victims' commissioner. I acknowledge that the Bloomfield report recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of such a commissioner to act primarily as a watchdog over the delivery of services and to give advice to victims. We have not pursued the recommendation, but the matter is still open. However, we have established a Minister for Victims—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—who will keep the strategy for responding to victims' needs under regular review. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley will accept that that answers his point in part.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke pressed me on the question of the West Tyrone Voice. I should prefer to reply to him in writing, if I may. I would then be able to reply more fully than I could now.
I am grateful for the measured criticisms made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for his support for part of the Government's response to the report. As we said, our policy in this area is to encourage people to liaise with the police in order to try to make them more secure in their community, or, if they felt obliged to move, to work towards their reintegration.
We need to support those forced to leave their homes, but I urge hon. Members to accept that the mechanisms to do that are already in place. In paragraph 26 of the report, the Select Committee noted:
"Those forced out of Northern Ireland often face a number of practical difficulties, such as finding a doctor, suitable housing accommodation, suitable employment".
Hon. Members gave some moving examples of those difficulties today.
Those who travel to Great Britain from Northern Ireland as a result of intimidation form part of a wider homeless population, which the Government are addressing strategically as a matter of policy. As a result, there has been considerable success at the hard edge of homelessness. We have cut the estimated number of rough sleepers by more than 71 per cent. since 1998. My
176WH
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has taken on responsibility for victims and has moved the Government's programme of support forward.
I hope that the Committee accepts that we have allocated more than £18.25 million for victims' issues and have put in place a comprehensive series of initiatives to provide much needed support for victims and their families. Some £250,000 of that amount has been allocated to the Legacy project, which is being delivered by the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball trust at the Warrington peace centre. The aim of that project is to identify and meet the needs of victims of the troubles living in Great Britain. That includes not only members and families of members of the armed forces who served in Northern Ireland, but residents from Northern Ireland who were forced to relocate to the mainland.
We are considering how the remaining £250,000 could best be put to use. It goes without saying—although I will—that we utterly condemn all paramilitary violence and intimidation. We acknowledge the need to help those who have been displaced, but we consider that our first responsibility is to tackle the cause, as we have been urged to do today, rather than the effect. Even though the main paramilitary organisations have had ceasefires in place for some years, we have always acknowledged that those ceasefires were imperfect because we were in a period of transition.
Many hon. Members criticised the Government's assistance, management and support of the police service in Northern Ireland. It is worth drawing attention to Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan's response, which is quoted in paragraph 32 of the report. I accept that that response was made on 13 December 2000, and that a lot has happened in the past difficult year. However, he told the Select Committee that in
"parts of West Belfast, the last three or four years, we have seen the number of calls, routine calls, to the police for assistance virtually double."
He cited that as evidence that people in those areas wanted to get back to normal policing and were rejecting the paramilitaries. We in government will do everything that we can to reinforce that trend.
The organised crime taskforce, which I chair, has had considerable recent success in the fight against organised crime. One of the ways that we can crack the paramilitaries' control is by hitting their resources and their ability to organise. The taskforce is taking that work forward. The successes of the taskforce and those agencies will impact directly on the finances of the organisations concerned. We in government will keep up the pressure on the paramilitary organisations.
I believe that, given good will and support from all sides—particularly support for the police in Northern Ireland—we will turn the tide. I believe that people in Northern Ireland will come to see that rejection, rather than fearful acceptance, of paramilitary threats is a viable option, and when they do, the control of those organisations will be broken. Until then, the Government will continue to make appropriate provision for those forced from their homes. We believe that we can best serve them by working to create circumstances in which they feel able to return home.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Postal Service Job Losses
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Communication Workers Union regarding projected job losses in the postal service. [33802]

  Ms Hewitt
  While Ministers have had discussions with the Communication Workers Union on a range of issues, the cost-saving proposals announced by Consignia are an operational issue for the company in consultation with the unions.

  Chemicals Industry
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the chemicals industry in the north-west of England. [33803]

  Mr. Wilson
  The chemical sector forms one of the north-west region's most important clusters. It accounts for 22 per cent. of the UK chemical industry. It contains the highest concentration in the country of the faster growing speciality and fine chemicals companies, supplying new markets such as electronics, pharmaceuticals and consumer products.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prospects for the aerospace component manufacturing industry in 2002. [33804]

  Mr. Wilson
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the severe downturn in air travel following 11 September has resulted in a reduction in orders for new aircraft and a lower demand for aircraft repair and maintenance. This is inevitably having an adverse effect on the aerospace component manufacturing industry, which is likely to persist throughout 2002. However, all possible steps are being taken to restore passenger confidence and there are signs that this is starting to return. The Government believe that the long-term prospects for the industry remain good, and that market growth will return to its former level.

  Gas and Electricity Suppliers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to eradicate sales malpractices by gas and electricity suppliers. [33805]

  Mr. Wilson
  Regulation of energy suppliers is for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). Ofgem has already, with our strong encouragement, put in place specific marketing and sales rules for suppliers that go beyond those in general consumer law, and will shortly 518W
  consult on extending these rules. Energy watch, the statutory consumer body established under the Utilities Act 2000, recently launched its "Stop Now!" campaign to combat unscrupulous sales practices. I wrote to all suppliers in November making clear that, if they do not address the problem of dishonest sales, those of us concerned with energy supply will need to look again at how best to protect consumers.

  Technology (Telford)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Advantage West Midlands in relation to technology investment in Telford. [33809]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the Board of Advantage West Midlands to discuss region-wide issues such as manufacturing and the region's proposals to become a Manufacturing Beacon; clearly this will have an impact on Telford. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and other DTI Ministers, also attend regular meetings of the RDA Chairs, including Advantage West Midlands, where a wide range of issues is discussed, including its broadband and technology cluster proposals.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place between her Department and the Department for Education and Skills on modifications to the research assessment exercise in higher education. [33810]

  Ms Hewitt
  As mentioned in the Science and Innovation White paper "Excellence and Opportunity", my Department will monitor the modified guidance for the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise, and we shall be discussing the issues arising with the Department for Education and Skills, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions she is taking to encourage inward investment from Japan and South Korea. [33812]

  Ms Hewitt
  I visited South Korea and Japan from 7-12 January and met existing and prospective investors in both individual and group meetings, including a meeting with senior representatives of the Japanese automotive industry in Tokyo.

  The Invest UK teams in both South Korea and Japan organise a series of initiatives, including marketing programmes, company calls, seminars, company visits to the UK, and attendance at trade fairs, all aimed at encouraging companies to invest in the United Kingdom.

  The attractions of the United Kingdom mean that this country remains the number one location for South Korean and Japanese foreign direct investment in the European Union. To maintain this position, in the face of difficult global economic conditions, Invest UK has intensified its efforts at attracting knowledge-driven, high value investments in the ICT, automotive, life sciences and financial services sectors.

  Manufacturing
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government assistance for exports from the UK manufacturing industry. [33814]

  Nigel Griffiths
  British manufacturers account for over 60 per cent. of total British exports.

  This year we are spending some £69 million through British Trade International to help British exporters access the information, skills and contacts they need to trade successfully overseas.

  In addition, the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) helps British exporters to compete overseas. Last year it underwrote £5.6 billion of new business.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to improve productivity in manufacturing industry. [33817]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since 1997 we have established a stable macro-economic framework to ensure the future competitiveness and productivity of British manufacturing. We have built on this basis with policies to promote the spread of best practice, encourage innovation, raise skills levels and improve the transfer of ideas from the science base.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the state of manufacturing industry. [33811]

  Mr. Wilson
  Manufacturing production is weak across the industrialised countries, including in the UK. The Government's policies are designed to assist the manufacturing sector improve its competitiveness and future prospects.

  Work Life Balance Challenge Fund
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many organisations have received funding from the work life balance challenge fund. [33815]

  Ms Hewitt
  176 organisations.

  Social Entrepreneurship
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the contribution social entrepreneurship can make to the UK economy. [33816]

  Ms Hewitt
  The past lack of a common definition of social enterprise means that there is currently no reliable data on the contribution it makes to the UK economy. DT1's Social Enterprise Unit, working with academics and others, is reviewing existing research and identifying how best to map and evaluate social enterprise.

  Fireworks
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consultation has taken place with trading standards officers on the subject of fireworks. [33818]
  520W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have sought feedback from trading standards departments on enforcement activities in respect of the fireworks safety regulations.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will answer the letters of 30 November 2001 and 10 January 2002 from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West regarding nuisance fireworks. [32514]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I will reply to the hon. Member shortly.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met National Assembly secretaries to discuss wind energy in Wales; and if she will make a statement. [33819]

  Mr. Wilson
  DTI Ministers and officials have regular contact with Ministers and officials of the National Assembly on a range of issues including wind energy.

  The Government have set an ambitious target for renewable energy and the development of wind energy in Wales will make an important contribution.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the environmental impact of wind farms. [35607]

  Mr. Wilson
  Each proposed wind turbine installation is subject to some environmental evaluation prior to its construction. For proposed wind farms involving more than a single turbine, whether onshore or offshore, a full environmental impact assessment by an independent consultant is generally required.

  A number of studies, conducted both within the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme and outside, have looked in detail at environmental effects of wind farms. These include studies on noise, birds, other wildlife, visual impact, electromagnetic interference, and the cumulative effects of wind turbines on a locality.

  Information and Consultation Directive
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of the information and consultation directive on British business. [33820]

  Alan Johnson
  The directive will help reinforce what the Government are already doing to promote partnership at work, and through partnership to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of British business.

  Barcelona Summit
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her objectives will be at the forthcoming Barcelona summit with special reference to industrial competitiveness. [33821]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, Heads of Government acknowledged that Europe needed major structural reform to succeed in the global economy and that companies needed flexible, strong and open markets to enable them to improve their competitive position and create new jobs. The summit set out two ambitious goals: to make the EU the most competitive
  521W
  economy in the world and to create full employment by 2010. The Barcelona summit marks the end of the second year of this 10-year programme.

  The Government are a strong supporter of the Lisbon agenda and want the Barcelona summit to reaffirm the EU's commitment to economic reform. In doing this we need to take stock and evaluate progress against the conclusions agreed at Lisbon and set out a future programme of work to ensure that momentum is maintained.

  The EU has made good progress in a number of areas—for example, updating the regulation of telecommunications—but progress has been less encouraging in others. We are still waiting for agreement on a Community Patent and updated public procurement rules. We will be looking to Barcelona to give a political push in those areas where negotiations have progressed less positively.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she next expects to meet Consignia management to discuss their business plan for 2002–03. [33822]

  Mr. Alexander
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has regular meetings with Consignia management to discuss a range of issues relating to the future of the company.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the universal service obligation for mail delivery services. [33801]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government consider the maintenance of a universal postal service in this country to be of the highest importance. That is why we enshrined the obligation in primary legislation in the Postal Services Act 2000 and gave the postal regulator (Postcomm) the primary duty to exercise its functions in a manner best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. It is therefore for Postcomm to determine how the universal service obligation is implemented in the interests of consumers. Currently Postcomm requires Consignia plc, in the licence, to provide a universal postal service.

  Technology Transfer
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she is doing to encourage technology transfer from academia to industry. [33823]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's White Paper, "Excellence and Opportunity: a science and innovation policy for the 21st century", published last July, set out a comprehensive range of measures to help promote technology transfer from academia to industry; and we have made some excellent progress here.

  Last October we announced awards totalling over £100 million to help universities grow their capability to interact with business and to realize the business opportunities offered by science—including further science enterprise centres and seed-corn funding to assist the transformation of good research into good business. We have doubled the number of new starts for Faraday
  522W
  Partnerships to link the science base to business networks, and expect to have reached our target for a national network of 24 partnerships by the end of the year. We have increased our funding of the successful TCS scheme.

  Total TCS activity grew by 25 per cent. during 2001; from 730 to 918 current TCS programmes. TCS enables universities and businesses to work together using high calibre graduates drawing on academic support and expertise while they work in companies on "business-driven" projects.

  We are also continuing to provide support for collaborative research and development under the Link programme and have committed £12 million in 2000–01 to a further round of Foresight Link Awards projects complementing current Link programmes in Foresight priority areas.

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to reply to the letter dated 24 September 2001 from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East on fines for the non-delivery of accounts to Companies House. [28009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]I replied on 13 February 2002.

  Single Tier Exemption
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations her Department has received since the Trading Schemes Act 1996 to amend the definition of single tier established in the Fair Trading Act 1973, so that more than a single master franchise of a trading scheme may be permitted in the UK; if proposals permitting a change to exempt certain multi-level schemes were considered in her Department when drawing up S.I., 1997, No. 1887; if she will place in the Library details of her considerations in opting to maintain the single tier exemption in 1997; and if she will make a statement. [26153]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Current legislation on trading schemes does not prohibit more than one master franchise from operating in the UK. However, each master franchise would have to comply with the relevant provisions of the trading schemes legislation.

  The legislation is intended to protect scheme participants or potential participants whose ability to take commercial risks is similar to that of consumers and not to restrict normal business format transactions. The 1997 regulations therefore exclude from controls single-tier schemes or schemes where participants are registered for VAT. Some exemption of certain multi-level schemes was considered but it was concluded that this carried the risk of creating loopholes in the controls.

  A copy of the summary of responses to the consultation which preceded the 1997 regulations has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Enron
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will establish an inquiry into the implications for UK corporate accounting practice of the collapse of Enron. [30084]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No. There are major differences between the accounting requirements in the UK and the US, which make it unlikely that the principal accounting factors we understand to have been involved in the collapse of Enron would be replicated here. We are, however, following developments in the US. The UK Accounting Standards Board has been playing a leading role for some time in international discussions of accounting requirements in this area.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when, and by whom, the relevant ministers were informed of the problems at Enron Corporation. [31937]

  Mr. Wilson
  In accordance with previous Administrations it is not our practice to disclose internal advice to Ministers which is exempt under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on access to Government information.

  Dual-use Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many dual-use export licences have been granted for the category code 5A001b4a since 1997; how many items were contained within each export licence application granted; and what were the countries of destination and the end-users for the equipment. [32281]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish the number of licences issued by destination for the category code 5A001.b.4.a since 1997.

  Details of all export licences, including those for digitally controlled radio receivers controlled under category code 5A001, are published by destination in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 annual report will be published as soon as possible.

  Small Businesses (Regulatory Burden)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses resulting from the implementation of EU directives. [33016]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To tackle European policy initiatives that unfairly burden British small firms, the Small Business Service has set up smallbusinesseurope which lobbies for small business interest while European directives are being framed. To avoid unnecessary and over-complex implementation of European directives in the UK, this Government have produced essential guidance for policy officials—the Guide to Better European Regulations, and the Transposition Checklist. Transposition Notes help avoid 'gold-plating' by showing up any potential over-implementation, enabling it to be addressed. These notes have accompanied primary or secondary legislation that gives effect to European directives, easing scrutiny both by Parliament and business, since November 2001.
  524W

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33201]

  Ms Hewitt
  Centrally held records show the numbers of secondments to and from each of the companies listed in the years specified as:

  Inward secondments to the DTI

  Name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  BP Amoco

  0

  1

  0

  BP

  0

  0

  1

  Shell

  1

  1

  2

  Enron

  0

  0

  0

  Exxon Mobil

  0

  0

  0

  Conoco

  0

  0

  0

  Texaco

  0

  0

  0

  TotalFinaElf

  0

  0

  0

  Outward secondment from the DTI

  Name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  BP Amoco

  0

  1

  0

  BP Gas Marketing Ltd.

  1

  0

  0

  Shell

  0

  0

  0

  Enron

  0

  0

  0

  Exxon Mobil

  0

  0

  0

  Conoco

  0

  0

  0

  Texaco

  0

  0

  0

  TotalFinaElf

  0

  0

  0

  Independent Non-executive Directors
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage companies to appoint independent non-executive directors. [35187]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's approach to this issue was set out in the pre-Budget report, which stated:"The Myners review highlighted the importance of non-executive directors in UK corporate governance. The Company Law Review drew attention to a growing body of evidence from the US suggesting that companies with a strong contingent of non-executives produce superior performance. The Government recognises the importance of continued progress in this area, and of developing further the role of strong, independent non-executive directors within the present best practice framework of corporate governance for quoted companies."

  We consider that effective non-executive directors have a key role to play in contributing to the success of their companies. This is an area where the Government believe that there is room for improvement. We regularly discuss this issue with institutional investors and other leading business organisations, and recognise and appreciate the work they do in raising the effectiveness of non-executive directors.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many copies of BNFL Inc.'s 1998 accounts were(a) printed and (b) distributed by BNFL Inc. [34635]
  525W
  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for BNFL. I have asked the chief executive of BNFL to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33865]

  Ms Hewitt
  Centrally held records show the numbers of secondments to and from each of the companies listed in the years specified as:

  Secondments into DTI

  Company name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  April 2001 to date

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  1

  0

  0

  Ernst and Young

  1

  0

  1

  Deloitte and Touche

  1

  1

  0

  KPMG

  0

  1

  2

  Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  Secondments from DTI

  There were no secondments to the companies listed from the DTI in the periods covered.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a code of conduct exists for the Office of Fair Trading when investigating complaints against companies; and if she will make a statement. [33049]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The conduct of the Office of Fair Trading is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Ispat International
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list meetings between(a) Department Ministers and (b) senior departmental officials and representatives of Ispat International between May 1997 and December 2001, indicating the date of each meeting. [33115]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Ministers, special advisers and officials in my Department regularly meet a wide range of representatives from business. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply of 19 November 2001 Official Report, column 102W makes clear, it is not normal practice to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings were held between her Department and representatives of LNM/Ispat International since May 1997. [36739]

  Ms Hewitt
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance 526W
  with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release specific details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Broadband
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of companies had access to broadband technology in(a) St. Helens South, (b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the North-West RDA area, (f) the other RDA areas and (g) England in each of the last three years. [35421]

  Mr. Alexander
  A map showing geographical availability of broadband services can be found in the UK online annual report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of private sector investment in research and development as a share of GDP was made in(a) St. Helens South, (b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the North-West RDA area, (f) other RDA areas and (g) England in each of the last 12 months. [35412]

  Mr. Wilson
  Data on research and development (R&D) spending are not available on a monthly basis or for the exact geographies requested. The Office for National Statistics do, however, conduct an annual survey of R&D performed in business enterprise (BERD). Sub-regional data are available from this survey for 2000 but GDP is only available at a Government office region level (equivalent to RDA regions) for 1999 and at a sub-regional level for 1998. The table only covers own-funded BERD ie R&D performed in that region which was funded by the companies themselves (and not by Government or from abroad). Further details on the BERD survey can be found on www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme—commerce/MA14–2000.pdf.

  Own-funded BERD as a proportion of GDP 1998–99

  Percentage

  1998

  1999

  Region

  England

  0.92

  0.97

  North-west

  1.05

  1.13

  Cheshire

  2.34

  1—

  Cumbria

  0.79

  1—

  Greater Manchester

  0.40

  1—

  Lancashire

  0.97

  1—

  Merseyside

  1.31

  1—

  North-east

  0.18

  0.52

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.31

  0.30

  East Midlands

  0.87

  0.98

  West Midlands

  0.90

  0.89

  East

  2.43

  2.22

  London

  0.32

  0.42

  South-east

  1.03

  1.11

  South-west

  0.89

  0.85

  Wales

  0.29

  0.48

  Scotland

  0.27

  0.28

  Northern Ireland

  0.33

  0.43

  527W

  Own-funded BERD as a proportion of GDP 1998–99

  Percentage

  1998

  1999

  UK

  0.83

  0.88

  1 Not available

  Source:

  National Statistics

  Asbestos
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate her Department has made of the cost of removing white asbestos from commercial and domestic buildings in the UK. [35383]

  Mr. Wilson
  We do not have data on white asbestos contained in buildings and therefore do not have data on the cost of its removal.

  Energy Memorandum of Understanding (US)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken as a result of her Department's Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Energy in relation to new and renewable energy technologies. [35389]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Memorandum of Understanding between the DTI and the US Department of Energy (US DoE) came into force in November 2000. It aims to encourage collaboration in energy research and development. Some activities have already begun, eg on cleaner coal technologies. In the field of renewable energy, we await the response from the US DoE to a recent DTI proposal for a joint workshop on biomass to be held in UK later this year. This workshop would be supported by a series of site visits to show US experts what we are doing in the UK.

  My officials are also in discussion with US DoE on the possibilities of a workshop on distributed generation. Such a workshop would bring together experts from both sides of the Atlantic to discuss issues critical to the market penetration of renewable energy, with a view to possibly developing collaborative research and development projects.

  Local Shops
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to promote the economic viability of local shops in the vicinity of supermarkets. [35712]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I fully recognise the economic and social role that local retailing plays. Access to a local shop is an important service, and one which can help in the regeneration of our high streets, and in the rejuvenation of urban and rural communities.

  Our goal is the sustainability of a vibrant and diverse retail sector which can serve the needs of all social groups. It is not, however, our role artificially to keep businesses afloat through subsidies or to interfere in the commercial decisions of supermarkets operating in accordance with local planning regulations, but to help local shops become more sustainable through innovation, the adoption of new technologies and best practice.
  528W
  The DTI is holding a seminar on 15 February as part of its work on supporting small retailers. The seminar's objective is to encourage local organisations in England to help sustain retail businesses through promoting good practice initiatives, encouraging long term sharing of best practice among participants and promoting awareness of new projects. A signposting guide containing information and advice for small and medium sized retail enterprises in England on the schemes and support available will be launched at the event.

  The Small Business Service is also working with a number of intermediaries such as the Rural Shops Alliance, Association of Convenience Stores and the British Retail Consortium on issues to help small shops' competitiveness.

  Bristol, East
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of her Department's policies and actions(a) from 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997, (b) from 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998, and (c) since 7 May 1998. [35596]

  Alan Johnson
  The South West of England Regional Development Agency (SW RDA), is applying a considerable proportion of its resources to help improve the physical, social and environmental conditions of the Bristol, East constituency. The Agency works in partnership with Bristol city council and Barton Hill Community at Heart (New Deal for Communities) to identify, prioritise and manage its activities. The first year of operation was 1999–2000. Since then the agency, through either its own or inherited projects, has invested some £22.7 million in nine projects, which range from small community development buildings, through environmental improvement schemes, to Temple Quay—a major inner-city mixed-use development scheme. Seven additional future projects are at feasibility stage which are likely to attract agency investment of c. £10 million.

  The nine projects are:

  Sofa 2000: £284,000

  Bristol Foyer: £505,000

  110–116 Cheltenham Road: £446,000

  Temple Quay Core: £21,000,000

  Black Development Agency: £101,000

  St. Agnes Parl Lodge: £101,000

  Kuumba project: £101,500

  NCN Route 3, Avon Valley: £127,000

  Dings Park: £25,000.

  Business Link West and the Small Business Service continue to support business start up and development of existing businesses. The national Phoenix Fund, designed to encourage entrepreneurship in disadvantaged areas and launched in 1999, has made awards to two schemes in Bristol, East: the Bristol Area Community Enterprise Network (BACEN) and Bristol East Side Traders.

  Five wards in Bristol (Ashley, Easton, Lawrence Hill, Windmill Hill and Filwood) will benefit from the South West of England Objective 2 programme, launched on 13 March 2001, with total European funding of

  529W
  £118 million. The approved projects to date include £1.9 million European funding for Bristol Means Business, led by Business Link West.

  In November 2000 Brunel Training Group Ltd. based in St. George, participated in a Trade Partners UK sponsored Trade Mission to the Caribbean, organised by Business Link West and Bristol Chamber of Commerce. Prior to that visit the company commissioned a Tailored Market Information Report from the British High Commission in Barbados. As a direct result of that report and following their visit the company has started to train managers and customer care workers in Barbados. The company has plans to run the course on 11 West Indies islands. Barbados Government Ministers were among the first delegates at the first course.

  Energy Consumption (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) coal, (b) gas and (c) oil she estimates was consumed in Scotland in the last year for which figures area available, broken down by local authority or by the nearest appropriate division. [35784]

  Mr. Wilson
  Oil consumption in Scotland in 2000 (as measured by deliveries of products for energy and non-energy uses to final consumers) was 6.8 million tonnes.

  Sales of gas to customers in Scotland receiving gas via the national transmission system amounted to 45,638 GWh in 2000.

  Data for oil and gas consumption are not available at a lower geographical level of disaggregation. 2000 is the latest year for which figures are available.

  Coal consumption data for Scotland alone are not readily available as consumption data are based on disposals from collieries and from coal imports, neither of which are separated by country of destination.

  Corus (Redundancies)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the aid package that was announced in May 2001 to provide support to communities affected by Corns redundancies has been spent. [35303]

  Mr. Wilson
  The majority of the £48 million package of regeneration measures for areas in England affected by the closures announced by Corns in May 2001 consisted of major infrastructure projects funded by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Projects of this kind are necessarily slow moving, and little money is spent in the early stages. Progress on the projects is as follows:

  Durham University Stockton Campus (budget £19.4 million)—discussions are continuing with Environment Agency and Highways Agency on the impact of the development. Site reclamation work will commence once this is concluded. No significant expenditure to date.

  Phase 2 of the Middlehaven scheme—One NorthEast is planning to spend some £16 million on Phase 2 which includes a contribution to a new junction on the A66 to access the site. Design work on the junction has been
  530W
  started and it should be built by March 2003. Development of the Phase 2 site, which will involve the private sector, is planned to start in the spring.

  New Tees crossing feasibility study (budget £250,000)—£118,520 committed to be spent in financial year 2001–02, the remainder in early 2002–03.

  Teesside Light Rapid Transit system feasibility study (budget £250,000)—£93,525 committed to be spent in financial year 2001–02, the remainder in early 2002–03.

  A66 Longnewton Junction improvements (budget £4.7 million)—the project is included in the Highways Agency budget and work programme. The agency expects to have identified a detailed work programme in the next two months.

  Broadband communications in Teesside and North Lincolnshire (budget £500,000 in each)—proposals from Regional Development Agencies are under consideration by DTI as part of the £30 million fund for the roll-out of broadband communications across the UK. An announcement of the work programme is expected shortly.

  Enterprise Grants in Scunthorpe (budget of up to £500,000)—expenditure is dependent on applications from companies wishing to expand. No expenditure has yet been made.

  The remainder of the package announced on 3 May consisted of an extension of the Job Transition Service to the areas affected by the closures, and is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Expenditure on the regeneration package for Wales also announced on that day is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Casim Project
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure that the procedure and process of peer review of the science case of the 4 GLS part of the Casim project are fair and transparent. [35462]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, on behalf of all the research councils, is handling the scientific peer review of the 4 GLS science case. To ensure that the process is fair the review is being undertaken by a panel of independent scientists nominated by the research councils. The proposal is being considered against a set of standard, agreed criteria. The reviewers' recommendations will be passed on to the Director General of the research councils, the meeting of the chief executives of the research councils and the scientists involved in the project.

  Higher Education Services (GATS)
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what consultations her Department has had with universities and colleges of higher education on the inclusion of higher education services in the United Kingdom as part of the forthcoming World Trade Organisation negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services; and if she will make a statement; [35438]
  531W
  (2) what plans her Department has to include higher education services in the United Kingdom as part of the forthcoming World. Trade Organisation negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services. [35439]

  Ms Hewitt
  My officials and officials from the Department for Education and Skills are consulting Universities UK. In addition the DfES is seeking the views of the devolved Administrations and I understand the Scottish Executive are consulting separately with Universities Scotland.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in her Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35368]

  Ms Hewitt
  Currently we are aware of 28 members of staff employed in a total of 14 job shares in the Department.

  Apart from a very small number, where there are particular, fully justifiable business requirements, all vacant positions are advertised as being available on a part-time, job share/split as well as on a full-time basis.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the effect of the Working Time Directive on her Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps she is taking to reduce this number; and if she will make a statement. [35894]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is held at local management level and is not readily available centrally.

  A partnership project between management and unions is currently looking at improving work/life balance in the Department.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices are planned to close in(a) Coventry and (b) the UK. [34919]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 February 20021 Post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. The Government's formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closure of rural post offices remains in place. In relation to the urban network, detailed discussion continues on the programme to restructure the urban post office network.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of cracks in the B30 nuclear waste storage facility at Sellafield. [36000]

  Mr. Wilson
  Inspectors from HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate inspected the B30 plant in 2001. As a result of this inspection, and a subsequent detailed review by BNFL's own experts, BNFL are taking action to institute a programme of remedial work and to enhanced its contingency plans for this plant.
  532W
  B30 is one of the older plants at Sellafield that contain the legacy wastes referred to in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the House on 28 November 2001 on Government proposals to set up a Liabilities Management Agency. These proposals are intended to help to systematically address the UK's historical legacy of radioactive waste, including the decommissioning of such plant as B30. In this particular case HSE is pressing BNFL to establish an early decommissioning programme.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding her Department provides for research into clean coal technology. [33807]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is making available some £13 million over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 for the research and development of clean coal technology. In addition to this some £11 million has been budgeted for underground coal gasification.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the questions tabled for answer by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr on 4 February 2002. [36063]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy answered question No. 33111 on 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1202W, and I answered question No. 33115 today at column 523-24W.

  Mineworker's Compensation
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the total of legal fees paid in respect of compensation claims for chronic obstructive and pulmonary disease for former miners who worked in the Leicestershire and south Derbyshire coalfields; what principles underpin the determination of such fees; and if he will make a statement. [35104]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 February 2002]To date, £1.0 million in Leicestershire and £0.3 million in south Derbyshire has been paid in claimants' solicitors costs. Costs and disbursements are paid in line with the handling agreement agreed between the Department and the claimants' solicitors. The costs are fixed in real terms, rising with inflation, and depend on the complexity of the case.

  Departmental Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by her Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [35876]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]:Information from the Department's systems indicate the following:

  533W

  Contracts

  £

  May 2001 to December 2002

  Gateway Fuels Ltd.

  28,897,176

  Consignia (Customer Management) Ltd.

  25,179,254

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  24,943,160

  ETSU

  22,211,888

  Post Office Ltd.

  12,013,929

  Laser (Teddington II) Ltd.

  8,966,759

  Freehold Portfolios Victoria Management Ltd.

  7,022,500

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  4,382,400

  Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd.

  4,141,000

  CSL Group Ltd.

  3,759,398

  Land Securities Properties Ltd.

  3,666,852

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  3,134,273

  Jones Lang Lasalle

  3,054,321

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  3,001,240

  Deloitte and Touche

  3,000,000

  AEA Technology Environment

  3,000,000

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  2,760,000

  International Computers Ltd. (ICL)

  2,500,000

  International Computers Ltd. (ICL)

  2,500,000

  A. Davies and Co. (Shopfitters) Ltd.

  2,391,319

  First Security (Guards) Ltd.

  2,170,065

  Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd.

  2,100,000

  Inside UK Enterprise Ltd.

  1,918,592

  Palmlace Ltd.

  1,792,858

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  1,575,936

  Brightstation

  1,539,600

  Astrium

  1,500,000

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  1,443,811

  Jones Lang Lasalle

  1,350,564

  Deloitte and Touche

  1,327,000

  May 2000 to April 2001

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  26,450,000

  AEA Technology PLC

  26,450,000

  ETSU

  26,450,000

  Westport Private Equity Ltd.

  20,000,000

  Syntegra

  17,857,426

  NPL Management Ltd.

  14,288,953

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  12,870,000

  Laser (Teddington II) Ltd.

  £11,000,000

  Legal and General

  7,750,000

  LGC (Teddington) Ltd.

  7,457,600

  International Computers Ltd. (ICL)

  7,282,859

  Freehold Portfolios Victoria Management Ltd.

  7,022,500

  Legal and General

  6,708,333

  AEA Technology Plc

  6,127,659

  Laser (Teddington II) Ltd.

  5,659,585

  International Computers Ltd. (ICL)

  5,276,595

  Syntegra

  5,262,244

  National Federation of Enterprise Agencies

  4,582,887

  Laser (Teddington II) Ltd.

  4,384,067

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  4,089,000

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  3,927,017

  AEA Technology Environment

  3,800,000

  Land Securities Properties Ltd.

  3,666,852

  Westminster City Council

  3,253,995

  Arthur Andersen

  3,078,652

  AEA Technology

  3,062,131

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  2,909,000

  Small Business Service (Staffordshire) Ltd.

  2,887,985

  Hays Information Management

  2,770,694

  Black Country BS

  2,658,893

  May 1999 to April 2000

  TUV Product Service Ltd.

  7,633,000

  ICL Central Europe Division

  6,960,000

  ICL Central Europe Division

  6,960,000

  National Federation of Enterprise Agencies

  6,162,340

  ETSU

  6,104,000

  AEA Technology Plc

  6,104,000

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  5,880,763

  Westminster City Council

  4,633,040

  NPL Management Ltd.

  4,534,472

  534W

  Contracts

  £

  AEA Technology Plc

  4,307,152

  NPL Management Ltd.

  4,092,039

  John Laing Construction

  4,028,987

  LGC (Teddington) Ltd.

  4,016,000

  NPL Management Ltd.

  3,403,454

  ETSU

  3,395,154

  International Computers Ltd. (ICL)

  3,361,702

  NPL Management Ltd.

  3,227,394

  Westminster City Council

  3,165,682

  NPL Management Ltd.

  2,739,733

  NPL Management Ltd.

  2,643,786

  First Security (Guards) Ltd.

  2,397,308

  NPL Management Ltd. (NPL)

  1,930,642

  Legal and General

  1,909,375

  Freehold Portfolios Victoria Management Ltd.

  1,755,625

  International Computers Ltd. (ICL)

  1,702,127

  NPL Management Ltd.

  1,652,558

  Legal and General

  1,625,000

  CSL Group Ltd.

  1,557,251

  Westminster City Council

  1,509,580

  Michael Shortland Associates

  1,444,579

  Information is not held centrally for earlier years and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Embassies
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in invoicing the number of scientific attaches in overseas embassies. [33431]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The £3 million expansion of the FCO's Science and Technology (S&T) network over the three financial years from April 2001 is being implemented on schedule. New S&T; staff have already taken up duties in Berne, Boston, Moscow, New Delhi, Ottawa, San Francisco, Shanghai, Taipei, Tel Aviv and The Hague. A further 22 new or upgraded slots will be filled, as planned, by April 2003. This will reinforce the network in key technology centres and more than double its geographical coverage. The expansion and management of the network are being co-ordinated by the FCO's Science and Technology Unit, established in April 2001.

  E-Government
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration she has given to making e-Government accessible for disabled people; and what actions have been taken as a result. [36242]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since December 1999 with the publication of the Guidelines for UK Government websites, Government web managers have been advised on how to make websites accessible to people with disabilities or impairments. On 1 February 2001 the then e-Government Minister the Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), announced that all central Government websites should conform to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) recommendations. The recently revised Guidelines for UK Government Websites

  535W
  support WAI recommendations and will give detailed guidance on how to conform to these internationally recognised recommendations.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Minister what steps she is taking to promote best practice in industry on equal pay. [33828]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have taken a number of steps already. As well as a questionnaire procedure for use in equal pay cases and other provisions in the Employment Bill, the Fair Pay Champions and the Castle Awards, created by my predecessor, are helping to spread good practice on equal pay. We are also taking forward recommendations from the Kingsmill report aimed at further reducing the pay gap. I have written to my Cabinet colleagues' union and will soon be writing to FTSE 100 companies, to gather examples of their good working practices, so that we can help spread these more widely.

  Sex Discrimination Act
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister if she will propose legislation to make the Church of England and Church in Wales subject to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. [33829]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no plans to review the relevant section of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, relating to organised religions generally.

  Unmarried Mothers
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister what assessment she has made of the impact of the enactment of the Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill on unmarried mothers in long term partnerships. [33830]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are taking forward a cross-departmental exercise to examine all the issues relevant to civil partnerships in detail. It would be premature for the Government to commit themselves to making any changes in these areas before undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all the implications.

  Flexible Working Practices
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Minister what steps she is taking to encourage flexibility at work for women. [33831]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's Employment Bill will give mothers, and fathers, of young children a right to request to work flexibly and set out the procedure that employers will have to follow to ensure applications are considered seriously. This new right will apply from April 2003.

  The Government's work-life balance campaign encourages all employers to introduce working practices, particularly flexible working arrangements, to enable mothers, and other employees, to balance better their work with other responsibilities. The fourth round of the Work-Life Challenge Fund, which provides consultancy
  536W
  support to employers looking to adopt such polices, is currently under way and employers are invited to submit applications by the closing date of 8 March

  Women in Public Life
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Minister what consultations she has had on the departmental action plans for public appointments of women. [33832]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are determined that women should hold half of all public appointments. The Minister for Women in the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), has discussed with ministerial colleagues in other Departments efforts towards this, and other diversity targets. The Government's overall action plan, together with individual departmental action plans, will be published later this month.

  Women Scientists
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister what steps she is taking to increase the number of women scientists working in the United Kingdom. [33833]

  Ms Hewitt
  I recently allocated funding to ensure that the Promoting SET for Women Unit will continue to be in existence for another five years to stimulate progress. I have asked Baroness Greenfield to lead a new high-level group to report with recommendations for a stronger strategic approach to increase the participation of women in science and engineering. I have also recently published the report "Maximising Returns to Science and Engineering Careers".

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGION

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31744]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The annual leave entitlement for all DTLR(C) staff outside of the senior civil service is 30 days, and has been in each of the last four years.

  The annual leave entitlement for all members of the senior civil service within DTLR (C) is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days, and has been for the last four years.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the people he has appointed to official bodies and non-departmental public bodies coming under the aegis of his Department in the last three years; and who they were. [33350]

  Ms Keeble
  Information about the numbers and remuneration of ministerial appointments to public
  537W
  bodies, including the names of chairpersons, is included in the annual Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and also published on the Cabinet Office's website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include information on appointments as at 31 March 2001, will be published shortly.

  A list showing people appointed by Ministers in the last three years has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Name

  (i) Term of office

  (ii) Salary (£)

  (a) Non-departmental public body

  Audit Commission

  Dame Helena Shove1ton1

  17 December 1998 to 30 November 2001

  34,880

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust

  Richard Temple Cox (reappointed)

  30 June 1999 to 29 June 2002

  32,680

  Urban Regeneration Agency

  Lord Walker (reappointed)

  10 December 1997 to 30 September 1998

  0

  Commission for the New Towns

  Dr. John Bradfield (reappointed)

  1 April 1998 to 30 September 1998

  37,223

  English Partnerships

  Sir Alan Cockshaw2

  1 October 1998 to 30 September 2001

  50,000

  Housing Corporation

  Baroness Brenda Dean

  6 November 1997 to 31 March 2001

  43,131

  (reappointed)

  1 April 2001 to 30 September 2003

  Health and Safety Commission

  Bill Callaghan

  1 October 1999 to 30 September 2004

  93,021

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust

  Paula Ridley (reappointed)

  8 February 1999 to 31 March 2004

  32,680

  Stonebridge Housing Action Trust

  Tony Wade (reappointed)

  27 July 1997 to 31 October 1997

  28,765

  Ivan Weekes

  1 November 1997 to 31 October 2000 (resigned 31 March 2000)

  30,828

  Caroline Pickering

  7 July 2000 to 16 July 2003

  32,680

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust

  Sheila Drew Smith

  1 July 1999 to 30 June 2004

  32,680

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust

  John Chumrow (reappointed)

  10 December 1997 to 31 December 2001

  32,680

  Standards Board for England (body created in 2001)

  Tony Holland

  7 February 2001 to 6 February 2004

  50,000

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Sir Alastair Morton3

  15 January 2001 to 31 March 2002 (resigned 30 November 2001)

  137,917

  Richard Bowker

  1 December 2001 to 30 November 2006

  250,000

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Sir Malcolm Field (reappointed)

  1 June 1999 to 31 May 2002 (resigned 16 September 2001)

  79,149

  Sir Roy McNulty

  17 September 2001 to 31 August 2004

  90,640

  Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate

  Michael FitzGerald (reappointed)

  2 August 1998 to 1 December 2000

  0

  Corinne Swain

  1 February 2001 to 31 January 2004

  0

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Jack Anderson (reappointed)

  1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999

  0

  Pat O'Sullivan

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001

  0

  Michael Finn

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  0

  Commission for Integrated Transport (body created in 1999)

  David Begg

  30 March 1999 to 29 March 2002

  26,497

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  Jane Wilmot

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 2001

  0

  (reappointed)

  1 January 2002 to 30 June 2003

  0

  Local Government Commission

  Malcolm Grant (reappointed)

  1 July 1999 to 30 June 2002

  21,400

  Property Advisory Group

  Robin Broadhurst

  1 July 1998 to 30 June 2003

  0

  Rent Assessment Panel Eastern

  Bruce Edgington

  1 October 1998 to 30 September 2002

  31,406

  Rent Assessment Panel London

  Susan Lloyd (reappointed)

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2002 (resigned 19 July 2000)

  56,670

  Siobahn McGrath (reappointed)

  1 December 2000 to 31 January 2003

  57,201

  Rent Assessment Panel Midland

  John Bettinson (reappointed)

  1 January 2000 to 14 October 2002

  31,406

  Rent Assessment Panel Northern

  Martin Davey (reappointed)

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004

  47,110

  Rent Assessment Panel Southern

  Robert Long (reappointed)

  1 October 1997 to 30 September 2002

  47,110

  Traffic Area Eastern

  Geoffrey Simms

  1 June 1998 to 2 August 20064

  68,000

  Traffic Area North Eastern

  Tom Macartney

  28 February 2000 to 30 June 20124

  68,000

  Traffic Area North Western

  Beverley Bell

  10 April 2000 to 7 December 20244

  68,000

  Traffic Area South Eastern and Metropolitan

  Chris Heaps

  4 January 2000 to 15 November 20074

  69,100

  Traffic Area West Midland and Welsh

  David Dixon

  1 May 1998 to 3 April 20074

  68,000

  Traffic Area Western

  Philip Brown

  9 May 2000 to 16 April 20184

  68,000

  (b) Commission

  Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental

  John Henes

  4 January 2000 to 31 December 2002

  Daily fee based on standard senior civil service rates

  Commission

  Commission for Local Administration

  Anthony Redmond

  12 November 2001 to 5

  132,603

  (c) Public inquiries

  Thames Safety Inquiry

  Right Hon. Lord Justice Clarke

  Appointed 09/09, report published January 2000

  No salary from the inquiry

  Marchioness/Bowbelle Formal Investigation and Public Inquiry into the Identification of Victims following Major Transport Accidents

  Right Hon. Lord Justice Clarke

  Appointed February 2000, final reports published March 2001

  No salary from the Formal Investigation

  538W

  Public Bodies (Chairmen)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33887]

  Ms Keeble
  Ministers in my Department have appointed or reappointed chairs since 1 May 1997 as follows:
  539W

  Name

  (i) Term of office

  (ii) Salary (£)

  Reopened Formal Investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire

  Hon. Mr. Justice Colman

  Appointed April 2000, report published November 2000

  No salary from the Reopened Formal Investigation

  Reopened Formal Investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul

  Mr. Justice Steel

  Appointed May 2000, currently adjourned. Likely to reopen late February/early March

  No salary from the Reopened Formal Investigation

  1 A new chair is currently being appointed to the Audit Commission. The deputy chair has been acting chair since Dame Helena stood down last November.

  2 In May 1999, during Sir Alan Cockshaw's chairmanship, the Urban Regeneration Agency and Commission for the New Towns came together as a single operating entity with the name English Partnerships. A new chair is currently being appointed, the deputy chair has been acting chair since Sir Alan stood down.

  3 Sir Alastair was appointed chair of British Railways Board—one of Strategic Rail Authority's predecessor bodies on 1 April 1999.

  4 The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 provides for appointment of Traffic Commissioners until their compulsory retirement at age 65.

  5 This post runs concurrently with the tenure of Mr. Redmond's appointment as a Commissioner for Local Administration. Commissioners may be relieved of office at their own request or may be removed from office on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour and shall vacate office on completing the year of service in which they attain the age of 65.

  (d) This Department does not designate a chair to head its agencies.

  (e) Information on the number, remit and membership of task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews has been published by the Cabinet Office on a regular basis. The first report was published on 11 January 2000 and gives information for the period between 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999. A second report was published on 27 July 2000, and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. A third report was published on 13 December 2000 covering the period I May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report, "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews," issued in October 2001, covers the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  (iii) Information on chairs political affiliation is not collected.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years, giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34182]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Telecommunications
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the costs of telecommunications services within public sector agencies in the south west region were in the last five years broken down by county. [33727]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Ship Safety Standards
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government plan to take to enforce and improve safety and working conditions onboard ships using British port and waters. [32127]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ships using British ports and waters are subject to a rigorous regime of inspection to check that they comply with minimum international safety standards and relevant working conditions. This is an on-going process.
  540W
  Ships that are found on inspection to fall short of international safety standards are detained until the defects leading to detention are put right. Ships failing to comply with the terms of release are refused access to British and European ports until the safety standards are met.

  The details of ships detained by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) are published on national and European websites and the ships are targeted for further inspection. Significant breaches of regulations are investigated and followed up by prosecution where appropriate. Details of prosecutions are also published.

  Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, what the profits were in the last five years for which figures are available; what the estimated profit this year is; what the current surplus or deficit was(a) five and (b) three years ago and what it is today; how much has been invested in the college in each of the last five years, including this year's estimate; what recent orders the college has won and how many residential students weeks have resulted; and how many student weeks were provided in the each of the last five years, including an estimate for this year. [34471]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on profits, surpluses, deficits and investment is set out in the annual reports and accounts of the Fire Service College which are presented to Parliament and published. The college estimates that investment in 2000–02 will total £4 million and profits will be between £2 million and £2.5 million.

  The college reports that it has recently won orders in respect of National Police Training totalling 14,500 student weeks over an 18 month period in 2001–03, firefighter recruit training totalling 780 student weeks and a number of foreign contracts totalling 1,260 weeks.

  Estimates of student weeks in each of the last five years are set out in the table.

  Weeks

  1996–97

  15,192

  1997–98

  15,008

  1998–99

  15,283

  1999–2000

  14,822

  2000–01

  14,087

  541W
  The estimate of student weeks for 2001–02 is: 17,435.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in respect of the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, how much foreign contracts were worth in each of the last five years, including an estimate for this year; what consultations and working parties are in progress on the framework document on the future of the college and when they are due to report; what the mechanism is for revising the framework document; when last year's audited accounts are due to be presented to Parliament; and who will write the summary of the annual report. [34473]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information provided by the Fire Service College for foreign contracts is set out in the table. The information is drawn from the college's course booking system. The figure for 2001–02 is an estimate.

  £000

  1996–97

  1,108

  1997–98

  927

  1998–99

  736

  1999–2000

  885

  2000–01

  1,149

  2001–02

  1,870

  Work on the future training requirements of the fire service in England and Wales, and the role of the college in delivering those requirements, are being taken forward in consultation with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. A report will go to that council in the summer.

  A revision of the Framework Document is being taken forward separately through the Fire Service College's Advisory Board. A new document will be submitted to me in due course.

  The annual report and accounts for 2000–01 were presented to Parliament in July 200]. The annual report and accounts for 2001–02 are expected to be presented in July this year. The foreword to the annual report will be written by the chief executive in charge of the college at the time.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies

  Elderly residential SSA

  Elderly domiciliary SSA

  Elderly people on income support

  Pensioners in rented accommodation

  Elderly people on attendance allowance or disability living allowance

  Pensioners living alone

  Pensioners in rented accommodation

  Elderly people on income support

  Elderly people with a limiting long-term illness

  Elderly people with a limiting long-term illness

  Pensioners not in a couple and not a head of household

  Pensioners living alone

  The domiciliary formula also includes a measure of sparsity, and both formulae include an adjustment for ability to raise income from charges. Finally, an area cost adjustment is applied.Full details of the formulae are available in "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2002/2003" which is available in the House of Commons Library. The social services formulae are
  542W
  and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32328]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Paragraph 7.1.7 of the Civil Service Management Code prohibits departments and agencies from providing staff with private medical insurance.

  NDPBs are not bound by the conditions in the Management Code—remuneration for staff in NDPBs is a matter for the sponsoring department and the individual NDPB.

  Planning
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, (b) Sport England, and (c) the appropriate devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the revised draft of PPG17. [34506]

  Ms Keeble
  I will consult other Government Departments before the final version of PPG17 is issued. I have met Sport England regarding PPG17, and my officials will be consulting further with Sport England in drafting the final version. The final guidance, like the draft that preceded it, will be for England only.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Elderly Care)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the SSA for elderly clients is calculated in each area; and if he will make a statement. [34601]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are two formulae for elderly social services—one for residential care and one for domiciliary care. The starting point for both formulae is the number of elderly people in each area. In the case of residential care it is the number of people in households; for domiciliary care it is the total resident population (which includes people in institutions as well as in households). In both formulae the number of people over 85 are given most weight, followed by those aged 75–84, with those aged 65–74 given least weight.

  In addition to age, the formulae include deprivation and other indicators associated with the likelihood of being in need of care. These indicators are shown in the table:

  currently under review together with the other grant distribution formulae. A new grant distribution system will be introduced in 2003–04.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will
  543W
  introduce new legislation giving local authorities powers for the immediate removal of those illegally in occupation of green belt land; and if he will make a statement. [34596]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: Local authorities already have at their disposal a range of planning enforcement powers if they consider that an unacceptable breach of planning control has occurred. These powers include the ability to seek a planning injunction in the High Court or county court, to restrain any actual or expected breach of planning control. The exercise of enforcement powers is at the local authority's discretion. The powers apply irrespective of whether the land benefits from any special designation such as green belt.

  Entering on to land without the owner's consent constitutes trespass. The owner of the land may bring a civil action for trespass before the courts and seek recovery of the land. Clearly where a local authority owns the land concerned, it is open to that authority to pursue

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  5 May 94–2 May 97

  2 May 97–7 May 98

  7 May 98–11 Feb 02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  166.581

  121.880

  506.021

  Income form National Domestic Rates2

  122.235

  90.650

  426.346

  Housing Investment Programme

  58.280

  15.962

  50.368

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  n/a

  n/a

  16.629

  Capital Receipts Initiative3

  n/a

  1.714

  11.567

  Cash Incentive Scheme4

  0.200

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing5

  4.493

  1.498

  5.990

  SRB Funding6

  2.446

  3.892

  24.150

  Local Transport Plan Settlement7

  3.079

  4.574

  21.287

  New Deal for Communities8

  n/a

  n/a

  3.617

  Objective 2 Funding9

  n/a

  n/a

  8.717

  Urban 1 Funding10

  n/a

  n/a

  2.101

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding11

  n/a

  n/a

  0.850

  Community Empowerment Fund12

  n/a

  n/a

  0.062

  Community Chest13

  n/a

  n/a

  0.100

  Workplace and Travel Plan Co-ordinators14

  n/a

  n/a

  0.030

  Estate Action15

  6.990

  n/a

  n/a

  1 From 1996–97 Bristol became a unitary authority and took on greater responsibilities.

  2 See 1.

  3 The Capital Receipts Initiative started in 1997–98 and ran for three years to 1999–2000 before being swallowed up by the single housing pot.

  4 Supplementary Credit Approval for the Cash Incentive Scheme ceased in 1998–99. There is no information available prior to 1996–97.

  5 The figure for 2001–02 is provisional at this stage as it is claimed retrospectively.

  6 SRB figures are for a variety of projects over the six rounds of SRB funding.

  7 The figure given is for 1996–97. There is no information available prior to 1995–96 when an Avon Area Package was given £10,856 million. See additional information for East Bristol specific schemes.

  8 This figure is the total forecast spend at the end of 31 March 2002. Additional information about NDC can be found in the additional information.

  9 See additional information for projects approved so far that will have an impact on East Bristol.

  10 Examples of projects funded by Urban in the East Bristol Constituency are in the additional information.

  11 See additional information.

  12 See additional information.

  13 See additional information.

  14 See additional information.

  15 This programme continued under the Single Regeneration Budget following 1995.

  Additional Information

  New Deal for Communities

  NDC is a 10-year programme that will bring an additional £50 million of government funding to support regeneration of the Dings, Redfield, Barton Hill and Lawrence Hill areas of Bristol. The programme supports a plan that brings together local people, community and voluntary organisations, public agencies, local authorities
  544W
  recovery through this route. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides a further route through which local authorities (and the police) can seek eviction.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions(a) from 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997, (b) from 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998, and (c) since 7 May 1998. [35600]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to Bristol city council for the period 1994–2002 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Bristol, East. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  and business in an intensive local focus to tackle problems around, drugs, poor educational attainment, and unemployment.

  Transport

  Specific schemes funded in Bristol, East since May 1997 include:

  Improved bus priorities on Bath road, Brislington and Wells road, Knowle and Totterdown and Clarence road, Lawrence hill.

  545W

  Bristol Dial-a-Ride Service extended to cover the whole of East Bristol.

  Preparatory work towards the Light Rapid Transit, which runs through Lawrence hill.

  Sandy Park road (Brislington) environmental improvement scheme

  Emlyn road and Robertson road (Eastville) traffic calming

  The increased funding allocation for this year will see the programme include:

  Brislington Home Zone, covering Broomhill road, Wick road, Allison road and First avenue.

  Ridgeway road/Lodge Causeway Road Safety Scheme.

  Whitehall Primary Safer Routes to Schools scheme.

  Objective 2

  The South West of England Objective 2 programme was launched on 13 March 2001 with total European funding of £118 million. Five wards in Bristol will benefit—Ashley, Easton, Lawrence Hill, Windmill Hill and Filwood. Projects approved so far include:

  Bristol Neighbourhood Action Plan (Bristol City) Council/Bristol Regeneration Partnership)—£6.7 million European funding

  Bristol Means Business (Business Link West)—£1.9 million European funding

  Ashley Vale Action Group Office Block Development—£117 thousand European funding.

  URBAN 1

  Bristol, East wards have benefited from the E-C URBAN programme, a community initiative worth over £7.6 million in total over 1997–2001. Projects that have operated in Bristol East, include:

  Bristol East Side Traders awarded £491,200 towards a £1 million project to reverse decline in the inner area of Bristol.

  Easton Business Centre awarded £300,000 towards a £741,000 project to provide 19 enterprise workshops on derelict land.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Bristol has been awarded £8 million over three years from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. The fund is an additional, non-ring fenced resource to help local authorities in the most deprived areas focus their main programme spending to deliver better outcomes for their deprived communities. Knowle West, St. Pauls and Southmead have been identified in the city for targeting the fund.

  Community Chest

  This is a small grants scheme for small organisations in NRF authorities. Bristol has been allocated £100,000 in year one.

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Available to NRF authorities as way of capacity building in communities to enable them to play a full and meaningful role in Local Strategic Partnerships.

  Workplace and School Travel Plan Co-ordinators

  Bristol was successful in bidding for additional funding for Workplace and School Travel Plan Co-ordinators. The £30,000 was awarded to the Council, however the amount claimed will be slightly less due to recruitment taking place in June and August respectively.

  Ports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 546W
  position he has taken on the proposed directive on the market access to port services; and if he will make a statement. [35872]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proposed directive on market access to port services would introduce a framework for competition in provision of services within ports, covering cargo handling, passenger services and technical-nautical services, including pilotage. The UK fully supports the broad principles of liberalisation and competition in the provision of port services, subject to safety and standards being safeguarded. However, we have a number of concerns about the proposals, and we consider that amendments will be required in order to take account of the diversity and complexity of the ports industry.

  The proposed directive is now under discussion in the Transport Council Working Group. We understand that the commission is planning to issue modified proposals. We shall consult fully with the ports industry, users, trades unions and other interests on them.

  Social Housing (London)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many units of social housing were built in London in each year between 1979 and 2001; and how many bedrooms there were in these units. [36033]

  Ms Keeble
  The data we currently have available for housing completions by registered social landlords and Local authorities are as follows:

  Number

  1988–89

  2,876

  1989–90

  3,638

  1990–91

  4,024

  1991–92

  3,720

  1992–93

  4,606

  1993–94

  5,743

  1994–95

  5,660

  1995–96

  5,052

  1996–97

  4,881

  1997–98

  4,381

  1998–99

  3,233

  1999–2000

  2,856

  The completions for registered social landlords of particular bedroom numbers are as follows:

  1 bedroom

  2 bedrooms

  3 bedrooms

  4 or more bedrooms

  1988–89

  870

  474

  139

  5

  1989–90

  821

  743

  295

  103

  1990–91

  977

  829

  350

  123

  1991–92

  1,156

  1,378

  490

  116

  1992–93

  1,887

  1,619

  732

  199

  1993–94

  1,581

  2,495

  1,253

  268

  1994–95

  1,523

  2,432

  1,195

  287

  1995–96

  1,300

  2,324

  1,103

  280

  1996–97

  1,156

  1,859

  1,442

  401

  1997–98

  1,068

  1,636

  1,202

  422

  1998–991

  14.3

  46.1

  31.2

  8.3

  1999–20001

  21

  44

  29.3

  5.7

  2000–011

  19.8

  50.3

  24.2

  5.8

  1 Percentage

  Note:

  For more recent years we only have the proportions of number of rooms.
  547W
  Information for the period 1979–88 is not readily available and there is no information currently available on the number of rooms per local authority completion.

  Motorcycle VED
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many submissions he has received during the consultation over changes to motorcycle VED; and if he will make a statement. [35970]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The consultation on reforming vehicle excise duty for motorcycles launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the pre-Budget report closed on Friday 8 February 2002. More than 10,000 responses have been received.

  New Rolling Stock
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the rate of delivery of the fleet of new trains to replace those in service, indicating the first date of delivery and the number in service at the end of(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. [35827]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: London Transport's plans for modernisation of the tube are designed to deliver a comprehensive upgrade of the whole network as quickly and efficiently as possible. London Transport is currently consulting the Mayor and Transport for London on the plans following its announcement on 7 February that it is minded to proceed. I expect London Transport to publish detailed information on the train replacement and refurbishment programme following that consultation.

  Electoral Modernisation
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the names of companies contracted to assist the local authorities in conducting the electoral modernisation pilot schemes for the May 2002 local elections. [35401]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: As a result of a procurement tendering exercise we have chosen the following 11 companies to support local authorities in conducting the electoral modernisation pilot schemes for the May 2002 local elections:

  Accenture

  BT

  DRS

  Electoral Reform Services ES&S

  KPMG Consulting

  OPT Balloting Technologies Oracle Corporation UK

  Powervote Ltd

  PWC Consulting

  Strand Business Systems

  Arriva Trains Northern
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 548W
  action he has taken to facilitate an agreement between Arriva Trains Northern and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union. [35986]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers are in regular contact with the Rail, Maritime and Transport union on a number of transport-related issues.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36181]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No days have been lost through industrial action during 1998–2001.

  Norwich Airport
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the management of Norwich International airport in each of the last five years; and what the nature of the discussions was. [36322]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Over the last five years, neither my Ministers nor I have had discussions with the management of Norwich International airport.

  Since the start of the South-East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) in March 1999 officials from my Department have met Norwich airport management on a number of occasions. Discussions focused on the SERAS study process, possible technical assistance by the airport in the study and the future role of the airport as perceived by the management team.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(a) Norfolk county council and (b) Norwich city council about the future of Norwich international airport; and what assessment he has made of the future of the airport within the Government's airport strategy. [36321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Neither my Ministers nor I have had recent discussions about the future of Norwich international airport with either of the organisations.

  As part of the South-East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) there have been discussions at official level with both Norfolk county council and Norwich city council about the future role of the airport.

  An assessment of that role will be presented in the forthcoming public consultation on the study outcomes. This is currently scheduled for spring 2002. Decisions made following the consultation will feed into the Air Transport White Paper which we aim to publish in the second half of the year.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of his relaxation of financial borrowing for the development of certain regional airports. [36323]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The relaxation of borrowing controls has allowed soundly-financed local authority airport companies to make investment plans with much greater
  549W
  confidence and to respond to commercial opportunities as they arise. It has also encouraged them to bring a more commercial approach to their investment decisions. Manchester and Norwich airports have made use of their freedom to borrow money from the banks, while the Newcastle shareholders have been able to restructure the airport company as a public private partnership.

  Broadspring Wood, Denham
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the Highways Agency will revoke the licence of the Uxbridge Gun Club to occupy Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire; [36095]

  (2) if the Highways Agency will bring proceedings against the Uxbridge Gun Club in respect of damage to Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire; [36098]

  (3) if Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire, is ancient woodland; and what environmental assessments have been carried out in respect of the wood; [36096]

  (4) what the terms are of the licence from the Highways Agency under which the Uxbridge Gun Club occupies Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire. [36094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency agreed to the licence of Broadspring Wood to the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club under the following terms:"The exclusive right of sporting by shooting and of killing and carrying away for his own use all game deer wild fowl and such other wild birds listed in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as it shall for the time being be lawful to shoot kill or take and to shoot clay pigeon. Together with power to enter upon the lands for the purposes aforesaid and for rearing and preserving game and wildfowl".
  "To exercise the rights and privileges hereby granted and demised in a sportsmanlike and proper manner and at proper seasons of the year and in such a way not to endanger tenants occupiers or users of the lands or any adjoining neighbouring premises or to cause any nuisance or annoyance to the same".
  "Not in the exercise of the said rights and privileges to do or permit to be done any spoil or damage whatsoever to the lands or to the woods banks fences hedges crops or plantation thereon or any property of the Owners".
  "To indemnify the Owners against all agricultural and other claims and demands made against them for costs incurred by them in relation to any spoil or damage to property stock crops or any person against claims of any other nature arising out of game damage or the exercise of the rights and privileges herby granted and demised".
  "To kill destroy and strictly keep down the ground game pigeons moles and other pests in and upon the lands so as to prevent the number of them increasing or impeding the good management of the lands or injuring the crops trees underwood plantation pasturage hedges and fences thereon".
  "To satisfy the Owners that the Licensee during the period of this Agreement is adequately covered by insurance in respect of third party liability for a sum of not less than £5,000,000 and on request to produce for inspection by the Owners the policy and premium receipt".
  "To obtain any planning or other permission which may be required".
  "Not to shoot towards the M25".
  "To remove empty cartridge cases from the land after each shooting day".
  "To adhere to the British Sporting Code".
  550W
  The Highways Agency have requested their managing agents Smiths Gore urgently to visit the site to investigate any further disturbance to the land since their visit on 13 December 2001. They are requested to report immediately and on receipt a decision will be made on whether the licence held by the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club is to be revoked.

  Throughout the process of negotiating the licence and the sale of Broadspring Wood to the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club the Highways Agency had no indication that the site was designated as ancient woodland. Professional advice was sought in respect of the sale of the land and it was reported the woodland was in poor condition and contaminated. The contamination was alleged to be from the adjacent land that was a former refuse site.

  Together with the recent concerns about the activities of the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club and the suggestion that the site is designated as ancient woodland the Highways Agency will undertake a full review of the case and take any action deemed necessary against the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club.

  EU Funding
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those regions in which areas entitled to bid only for Objective 3 structural fund programmes are represented on programme monitoring and regional committees. [36257]

  Ms Keeble
  Programme monitoring committees only operate in Objective 2 areas, so do not include representatives from areas only entitled to bid for Objective 3 funds. Objective 3 is a national programme and operates across England (excluding Objective 1 areas). It is managed by a national committee. Nine regional committees oversee the delivery of the regional Objective 3 programmes. They are: north west, north east, Yorkshire and the Humber, west midlands, east midlands, south west, east of England, south east and London.

  In three regions, north west, west midlands and east of England, the partners have agreed that in the interests of coherence and integration both Objective 2 and 3 programmes should be managed by a single monitoring committee.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that areas entitled to bid only for Objective 3 structural fund programmes are represented on programme monitoring and regional committees. [36258]

  Ms Keeble
  Most Objective 3 funding is allocated to Government offices who work with partners to deliver the programme in line with regional priorities. Regional committees for Objective 3 oversee the delivery of the programmes.

  The Government have provided guidance to regions on the composition of each regional committee to ensure that they reflect regional interests in terms of sectoral and geographic coverage.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, for each region for the years 1993 to 1999 the percentage split of(a) Objective 2 structural fund programmes between

  551W
  European regional development fund and European social fund projects and (b) Objective 3 structural fund programmes between ERDF and ESF projects. [36259]

  Ms Keeble
  The table gives the information requested for the Objective 2 structural funds programmes by region for the 1994–99 programme round. There are currently no separate figures available for 1993, which formed part of

  Structural funds allocations for England 1994–99

  £000 (current exchange rate)

  Regional programme

  ERDF structural funds

  ESF structural funds

  Total structural funds ERDF and ESF

  Structural funds ERDF (%)

  Structural funds ESF (%)

  East Midlands

  1994

  686

  4,309

  4,995

  13.74

  86.26

  1995

  1,023

  3,146

  4,169

  24.55

  75.45

  1996

  29,366

  3,288

  32,654

  89.93

  10.07

  1997

  16,931

  2,075

  19,006

  89.08

  10.92

  1998

  17,733

  7,620

  25,354

  69.94

  30.06

  1999

  18,033

  8,101

  26,134

  69.00

  31.00

  Total

  83,773

  28,539

  112,312

  74.59

  25.41

  Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire

  1994

  1,585

  18,740

  20,325

  7.80

  92.20

  1995

  7,407

  13,410

  20,817

  35.58

  64.42

  1996

  136,062

  33,000

  169,062

  80.48

  19.52

  1997

  8

  12,880

  12,888

  0.06

  99.94

  1998

  592

  25,025

  25,617

  2.31

  97.69

  1999

  194,444

  35,697

  230,141

  84.49

  15.51

  Total

  340,098

  138,753

  478,850

  71.02

  28.98

  West Cumbria

  1994

  0

  310

  310

  0.00

  100.00

  1995

  673

  740

  1,413

  47.62

  52.38

  1996

  10,772

  1,780

  12,552

  85.82

  14.18

  1997

  1,481

  792

  2,273

  65.17

  34.83

  1998

  10,367

  792

  11,158

  92.91

  7.09

  1999

  4,364

  945

  5,308

  82.20

  17.80

  Total

  27,656

  5,358

  33,014

  83.77

  16.23

  London

  1994

  127

  2,120

  2,247

  5.66

  94.34

  1995

  1,385

  3,140

  4,525

  30.60

  69.40

  1996

  32,254

  4,770

  37,024

  87.12

  12.88

  1997

  44

  2,984

  3,028

  1.45

  98.55

  1998

  28,270

  7,005

  35,275

  80.14

  19.86

  1999

  18,876

  5,578

  24,454

  77.19

  22.81

  Total

  80,955

  25,597

  106,552

  75.98

  24.02

  North East

  1994

  4,801

  9,660

  14,461

  33.20

  66.80

  1995

  17,555

  11,650

  29,205

  60.11

  39.89

  1996

  114,130

  26,740

  140,870

  81.02

  18.98

  1997

  1,601

  7,096

  8,698

  18.41

  81.59

  1998

  6,270

  24,633

  30,903

  20.29

  79.71

  1999

  172,536

  29,855

  202,391

  85.25

  14.75

  Total

  316,893

  109,634

  426,527

  74.30

  25.70

  Plymouth

  1994

  889

  780

  1,669

  53.26

  46.74

  1995

  1,759

  1,220

  2,979

  59.05

  40.95

  1996

  10,593

  1,410

  12,003

  88.25

  11.75

  1997

  5,804

  1,391

  7,196

  80.66

  19.34

  1998

  7,739

  1,855

  9,594

  80.66

  19.34

  1999

  11,606

  1,393

  12,999

  89.29

  10.71

  Total

  38,390

  8,049

  46,439

  82.67

  17.33

  552W
  the 1989–93 programme round; the data for Thanet (SE Region) are not broken down by year because funds were allocated in a single tranche for each of the two programme rounds—1994–96 and 1997–99

  Objective 3 structural fund programmes are 100 per cent. ESF since ERDF formed no part of these programmes.
  553W

  Structural funds allocations for England 1994–99

  £000 (current exchange rate)

  Regional programme

  ERDF structural funds

  ESF structural funds

  Total structural funds ERDF and ESF

  Structural funds ERDF (%)

  Structural funds ESF (%)

  Thanet (SE)

  1994

  4,795

  1,130

  5,925

  80.93

  19.07

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  1997

  11,436

  2,528

  13,964

  81.90

  18.10

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  1999

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Total

  16,231

  3,658

  19,889

  81.61

  18.39

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1994

  2,233

  10,410

  12,643

  17.66

  82.34

  1995

  13,810

  7,430

  21,240

  65.02

  34.98

  1996

  124,311

  16,270

  140,581

  88.43

  11.57

  1997

  758

  4,029

  4,787

  15.84

  84.16

  1998

  9,735

  20,511

  30,246

  32.19

  67.81

  1999

  180,781

  44,081

  224,862

  80.40

  19.60

  Total

  331,628

  102,730

  434,358

  76.35

  23.65

  West Midlands

  1994

  3,507

  15,490

  18,997

  18.46

  81.54

  1995

  12,624

  17,440

  30,064

  41.99

  58.01

  1996

  157,918

  27,450

  185,368

  85.19

  14.81

  1997

  3,596

  11,263

  14,860

  24.20

  75.80

  1998

  89,041

  31,670

  120,711

  73.76

  26.24

  1999

  113,222

  30,468

  143,689

  78.80

  21.20

  Total

  379,908

  133,781

  513,689

  73.96

  26.04

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 838W, how many local authorities have exercised their discretionary powers to provide concessionary travel to children (a) under 16 and (b) 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education. [34976]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department has recently carried out a survey about concessionary travel in England that covers these matters. The returns are being analysed at present and the results will be published in due course.

  Air Passenger Rights
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which UK airlines and airports have signed up to the European Airline and Airports Commitments on Air Passenger Rights. [37365]

  Mr. Jamieson
  10 UK airlines have signed up to the Airline Passenger Service Commitment. They are Air 2000; Airtours International; bmi British Midland; Britannia Airways; British Airways; British European Airways; JMC Airlines; KLM (UK); Monarch Airlines; Virgin Atlantic Airways.

  20 UK airports have signed up to the Airport Passenger Service Commitment. They are Aberdeen; Belfast international; Birmingham international; Bournemouth; Bristol international; Cardiff international; East Midlands; Edinburgh; Exeter International; Glasgow; Humberside
  554W
  Leeds Bradford; Liverpool; London Gatwick; London Heathrow; London Luton; London Stansted; Manchester; Norwich international; Southampton.

  The launch of the Voluntary Commitments on Passenger Rights is good news for European air travellers. Air passengers have a right to expect the highest standards of customer care from the time at which they arrive at the airport to the point at which they reach their destinations. Responding to these expectations is a key component of a commercially successful aviation industry and the UK signatories have signalled that this is a matter that they treat very seriously.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what organisation will represent passengers on the board of the not-for-profit company to run the functions of Railtrack; and if he has offered anyone for that position. [35328]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) of 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W, made it clear that passenger groups could be members of a company limited by guarantee (CLG). It is for the team developing a bid based on the concept of a CLG to make a proposal to the administrator, including proposals for the membership of the proposed company.
  555W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people he has approached to serve on the board of the not-for-profit company to run the functions of Railtrack. [35329]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. It is for the team developing a bid based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee to make a proposal to the administrator, including a proposal for the management of the proposed company.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy that the not-for-profit limited company proposed for Railtrack will be 100 per cent. privately owned; and what option the Government will retain to buy back the company. [34039]

  Mr. Spellar
  A company limited by guarantee (CLG) is a private company without shareholders. A CLG would be accountable to its members. We do not expect that there would be an option to buy back the company.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the budgeted running costs are of the Strategic Rail Authority in 2001–02. [33391]

  Mr. Spellar
  Within its total budget for 2001–02 of £ 1.9 billion, the Strategic Rail Authority was set a running cost limit of £ 44.332 million.

  Possession warrants executed (mortgaged and rented properties), England and Wales, 1990 to 2001

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  East Anglia1

  1,590

  2,144

  1,873

  1,515

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands

  2,441

  4,487

  3,245

  2,842

  3,148

  3,663

  3,668

  3,924

  5,099

  5,363

  4,511

  3,878

  Eastern2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,546

  4,375

  4,541

  3,911

  4,393

  4,461

  4,129

  3,986

  London

  12,659

  17,320

  21,662

  16,052

  13,992

  14,417

  11,851

  13,067

  18,596

  21,071

  19,800

  21,834

  Merseyside3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  842

  816

  825

  1,087

  1,269

  1,793

  1,719

  3,789

  North East

  1,363

  1,913

  1,989

  1,722

  1,654

  1,788

  1,707

  1,970

  2,285

  3,003

  2,353

  2,353

  North West

  3,297

  4,642

  5,175

  5,132

  3,933

  5,019

  5,389

  5,883

  5,506

  6,804

  6,318

  5,456

  South East

  9,401

  14,606

  13,304

  10,909

  7,636

  8,002

  6,943

  6,076

  6,635

  6,996

  5,519

  6,085

  South West

  3,149

  4,478

  4,016

  3,899

  3,335

  3,545

  3,103

  2,939

  3,245

  3,655

  2,549

  2,041

  Wales

  2,207

  2,726

  2,698

  2,302

  2,907

  2,094

  2,036

  2,593

  3,075

  3,090

  3,079

  3,079

  West Midlands

  3,170

  5,205

  4,808

  3,907

  4,161

  4,138

  4,293

  4,639

  5,255

  6,755

  6,145

  7,535

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2,522

  3,618

  3,669

  3,053

  3,068

  3,239

  3,665

  4,333

  4,825

  5,747

  5,448

  5,563

  1 East Anglia region was absorbed into the eastern region in 1994

  1 Pre-1994 the eastern region was a combination of the east Anglia and part-south eastern regions

  1 Pre-1994 the Merseyside region formed part of the north west region

  FIRE SERVICES ACT
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government plans to review section 32 of the Fire Services Act 1947. [33782]
  556W

  London Underground
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the targets for each of the London underground lines for(a) points failure, (b) signal failure and (c) power train failure by (i) 2007 and (ii) 2012 under the proposed PPP; [35330]

  (2) what new rolling stock will be available on each of the London underground lines by (a) 2007 and (b) 2012 under the proposed PPP. [35331]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 397W, by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) [35828].

  Repossessions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many court repossessions of property there were, broken down by region, in each of the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [34605]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistical information for each region cannot be provided prior to 1990, as the manual figures collated are no longer available. However, national figures for this period are available from 1986 until 1989. Data collated by region from 1990 onwards are set out in the table. This shows possession warrants executed on mortgaged and rented properties in England and Wales from 1990 until 2001.

  Dr. Whitehead
  Section 32 provides that no member of a police force should be employed as a member of a local authority fire brigade. The Government are working with the fire service to consider the requirements for modernising the service, including the legislative arrangements. The application of section 32 will be included in that work.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35939]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not available as certification does not distinguish between work related and non-work related stress. No compensatory payments have been made for any stress-related absence.

  The Cabinet Office is aware of its legal responsibilities to reduce stress at work and provides in-house guidance and training to its managers. It also encourages, where possible, flexible working arrangements that allow for both work and home commitments to be accommodated.

  Regulatory Impact Assessment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what information the Government publish on the relative performance of Government Departments with respect to regulatory impact assessment; [36973]

  (2) if the regulatory impact assessment guidelines issued by the Cabinet Office will be made mandatory. [36974]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government do not publish information on the relative performance of Government Departments with respect to regulatory impact assessments.

  All Government Departments and agencies are required to produce regulatory impact assessments for proposed regulations that could impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees in his office who regularly use computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to(a) current and (b) new staff. [36690]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, effective January 1993, require employers to provide and pay for, upon request from an employee, an eye and eyesight test. There is a requirement for further tests at regular intervals; the optometrist doing the first test can recommend when the next one should be. In addition, employers must pay the cost of special spectacles required where normal ones cannot be used.

  I can confirm that 127 staff who regularly use computers within the Cabinet Office have taken up the offer of a free eye test between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001.
  558W
  The service is advertised to current staff on the Personnel website. This information is brought to the attention of new staff through the e-induction package which links in to the relevant Personnel website.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36183]

  Mr. Leslie
  None.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36207]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:

  1. Total expenditure on design, hosting and security for the Cabinet Office website (http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk) over the past four years was:

  £

  1998–99

  17,000

  1999–2000

  10,500

  2000–01

  100,170

  2001–02

  12,337

  These figures exclude VAT and staff costs. The significant increase in 2000–01 was due to security recovery following a successful hacking incident in July 2000.

  2. In accordance with the Office of the E-envoy's Guidelines for UK Government websites, greater importance is given to the statistical features of page impressions and unique visitors rather than hits (which is recorded in both homepage and entire site amounts), therefore these criteria have also been supplied for the years in question (January to December unless where indicated):

  No recorded statistics/data

  (Recorded from April to December)

  Page impressions—185,073

  Unique visitors—1,276

  Hits for homepage—170,358

  Successful hits for entire site—187,303

  (Months of July to September not recorded due to hacking)

  Page impressions—I,237,709

  Unique visitors—67,745

  Hits for homepage—233,037

  Successful hits for entire site—1,933,738

  Page impressions—7,172,623

  Unique visitors—424,596

  Hits for homepage—459,506

  Successful hits for entire site—12,588,868.

  559W

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36231]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has issued one statutory instrument during the last 12 months:SI 2001 No. 1587 The Superannuation (Admission to Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972) Order 2001
  the purpose of which was to add to and remove from the list of Other Bodies and Offices covered by the Superannuation Act 1972.

  The cost of implementation to (i) public funds was nil, (ii) businesses nil and (iii) individuals nil.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a), his Department,(b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34390]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 April 1999. 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.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by his Department and how much reclaimed. [34452]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  560W

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27958]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information requested covering 1997–98 to 2000–01 (inclusive) is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  935,000

  1998–99

  4,139,000

  1999–2000

  16,694,000

  2000–01

  15,763,000

  Note:

  Figures include fees, furniture/office equipment and VAT

  The increase between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is mainly attributable to the commencement of the project to refurbish Admiralty Arch (completed in 2000–01) and the Ripley and Kirkland buildings (due for completion in 2002–03). The Ripley and Kirkland project is a major change project involving a complete refurbishment (including the installation of new mechanical, electrical and plumbing services and lifts). This will create modern office space. When the project is completed this will form 22 Whitehall; one of the Department's major buildings.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much has been spent on timber for the refurbishment of the Ripley and Kirkland building; [35686]

  (2) how much certified timber has been used in the refurbishment of the Ripley and Kirkland building; and what proportion of the total timber purchased for this refurbishment this represents; [35685]

  (3) what action was taken by his Department to ensure that timber procured for the refurbishment of the Ripley and Kirkland building was sourced (a) sustainably and (b) legally. [35684]

  Mr. Leslie
  Approximately £460,000 of timber is being used in the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall (the Ripley and Kirkland buildings). With the exception of around £50,000 of timber which has been reclaimed (ie it is recycled) the remainder is all certified.

  The contract used with the main contractor for the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall places a requirement on the contractor to provide timber from certifiable sustainably managed sources upon which certificates are to be made available. Evidence provided by the main contractor indicates that all the timber supplied so far has been derived from sustainable and legal sources, ie the timber has been purchased under certified logging schemes.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the names of staff who have been seconded to his Department from the private sector since May 1997, indicating(a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and civil service grades within his Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35842]
  561W
  Mr. Leslie
  Secondments are part of the interchange programme, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. Before an interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  The secondees to the Cabinet Office, in the table, between May 1997 and 1 February 2002, worked in a variety of jobs from Cabinet Office B2 (equivalent to Higher Executive officer) to the senior civil service. They worked in a wide range of areas where we could benefit from their knowledge and expertise from the private sector.

  Completed secondments into the Cabinet Office from the private sector from May 1997

  Personal grade

  Start date

  Loaned organisation

  Termination date

  SCS

  1997

  Alexander Blackford Communications

  1999

  A

  9 November 1998

  National Westminster Bank

  9 November 1999

  SCS-4

  1 January 1999

  Andersen Consulting

  31 December 2000

  A

  4 January 1999

  PricewaterhouseCooper

  31 August 2000

  SCS-1

  4 May 1999

  Oracle

  30 April 2001

  A

  10 May 1999

  BT

  5 May 2000

  A

  17 May 1999

  KPMG

  30 June 2001

  A

  June 1999

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  2000

  A

  23 August 1999

  Frontier Economics Ltd.

  31 December 1999

  A

  9 September 1999

  BT

  28 July 2000

  A

  27 September 1999

  Carillion

  19 October 2001

  A

  27 September 1999

  KPMG

  12 May 2000

  A

  4 October 1999

  Wragg and Co.

  24 February 2000

  SCS-1

  25 October 1999

  Unilever

  19 October 2001

  A

  6 December 1999

  Andersen Consulting

  21 July 2000

  A

  6 December 1999

  Hay Management Consultants

  17 May 2000

  A

  13 December 1999

  Microsoft Ltd.

  21 July 2000

  A

  10 January 2000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  10 January 2002

  A

  7 February 2000

  Zurich Financial Services

  7 April 200

  A

  17 April 2000

  Hay Management Consultants

  28 July 2000

  B2

  27 March 2000

  British Airways

  23 March 2001

  A

  3 July 2000

  Energis

  31 October 2000

  SCS-3

  18 September 2000

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

  16 March 2001

  A

  21 November 2000

  GlaxoSmithKline

  30 June 2001

  Source

  Central Cabinet Office records

  Secondees currently in the Cabinet Office from the private sector

  Personal grade

  Start date

  Loaned organisation

  A

  9 November 1999

  Marks and Spencer plc

  SCS-1

  13 March 2000

  Sun Microsystems

  B2

  16 October 2000

  BUPA

  B2

  29 January 2001

  Environmental Resources Management Ltd.

  A

  2 April 2001

  Ford Motor Company

  A

  23 April 2001

  KPMG

  A

  23 April 2001

  Worksystems Inc.

  SCS-1

  4 June 2001

  Oxera Consulting Ltd.

  A

  18 June 2001

  Oracle

  A

  16 July 2001

  Attfield James Ltd.

  A

  25 June 2001

  Financial Times

  A

  1 October 2001

  Arthur Andersen

  A

  1 August 2001

  Bates, Wells and Braithwaite

  A

  3 October 2001

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  A

  22 October 2001

  Unilever

  SCS-1

  1 November 2001

  ICI

  A

  19 November 2001

  Accenture

  A

  3 January 2002

  KPMG

  B2

  3 January 2002

  KPMG

  Source:

  Central Cabinet Office records
  562W
  I am not prepared to identify individual secondees by name or responsibilities for reasons of employee confidentiality. Secondees are employed on the basis that they can contribute valuable expertise and good practice to the civil service, and on the basis that no conflict of interest arises. Where appropriate, their names are published in directories such as the Civil Service Year Book, as are those of permanent staff. But they are not separately identified as being on secondment.

  In all cases agreements are reached with the parent organisation on the salary reimbursed by the Cabinet Office to ensure it fall in the civil service pay range appropriate to the post.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco,(f) Texaco and(g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33214]

  Mr. Leslie
  During the period 1 April 1999 to 1 February 2002 there were no secondees into or out of the Cabinet Office from: BP, Shell, Enron, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Texaco or TotalFinaElf.

  Consultancy Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of work commissioned by Government Departments has been undertaken by(a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Ernst and Young and (c) PricewaterhouseCoopers in each year since 1978. [32808]
  563W
  Mr. Leslie
  Information for all Government Departments is not held centrally. This answer covers the Cabinet Office, including its agency, and the Central Office of Information.

  The table gives the proportions by value of consultancy

  Per cent.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02 1

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0.56

  2.15

  Ernst and Young

  1.57

  11.53

  2.18

  0.04

  2.17

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  0.35

  2.42

  2.30

  5.67

  4.52

  1 2001–02 figures for year to end January and subject to audit

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33843]

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen,

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02 1

  PWC Consulting PricewaterhouseCoopers

  19,228

  117,653

  233,021

  562,250

  463,533

  Ernst and Young

  85,553

  846,231

  221,480

  4,406

  0

  Deloitte Touche

  42,593

  45,839

  0

  32,648

  0

  KPMG

  66,997

  45,310

  33,768

  36,368

  42,259

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  55,812

  220,313

  1 2001–02 figures to the end of January 2002 and subject to audit.

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contracts his Department has had since 1997 with(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit and (iii) consultancy work; and what staff have been seconded (A) to his Department from and (B) from his Department to these firms. [32424]

  Mr. Leslie
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer.

  Since 1997 the Cabinet Office, its Agencies and COI have let the following contracts with Arthur Andersen and Accenture.

  Accountancy

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Arthur Andersen

  1997–98

  0

  0

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  1

  2001–02

  0

  0

  1

  564W
  work commissioned by the Cabinet Office and COI that was undertaken by (a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Ernst and Young and (c) PricewaterhouseCoopers in each financial year from 1997–98 to date. Figures for earlier financial years are available only at disproportionate cost.

  (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34996]

  Mr. Leslie
  The remuneration made by Cabinet Office and the Central Office of Information to PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst and Young, Deloitte Touche, KPMG and Arthur Andersen for consultancy services in each of the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is set out in the table. Information on the number of individual contracts is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Accountancy

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Accenture

  1997–98

  0

  0

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  2001–02

  0

  0

  0

  The number of secondments is as follows:

  Secondment to CO

  Secondment from CO

  Arthur Andersen

  1997–98

  0

  0

  1998–99

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  1

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  2001–02

  1

  0

  Accenture

  1997–98

  0

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  1

  2001–02

  1

  0

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when his Department expects to publish departmental targets for the appointment of women to public bodies for(a) 2001–04 and (b) 2002–05; [35989]

  (2) what percentage of those appointed to public bodies are women; and when the next set of figures will be released; [35990]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of progress by Departments towards their 1998 to 2001 targets for the appointment of women to public bodies. [35991]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given below to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government will publish the next edition of "Public Bodies" and the annual publication setting out the targets for increasing diversity in public appointments; and if he will make a statement. [36683]

  Mr. Leslie
  I am pleased to report that the latest edition of "Public Bodies", "Public Bodies 2001", is published today. This publication provides detailed information on all public corporations, nationalised industries, health bodies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), including tribunals and boards of visitors to penal establishments, in existence at 31 March 2001. Specifically, the report sets out for each body:

  Its location and terms of reference;

  The name, gender and remuneration of the chair and deputy chair and the number of members of the board and their gender (where these positions exist);

  The number of staff employed;

  The audit arrangements and the financial year in which the body was last reviewed by Government; and

  The body's total expenditure and the amounts funded by Government or by other means.

  Public bodies play an important role in the processes of national government and the women and men who serve on them, and the staff of these bodies, make a very valuable and positive contribution to the continuous improvement of public services and also to better policy making.

  The Government remain committed to minimising the number of NDPBs. As "Public Bodies 2001" shows that, at 31 March 2001, there were 1,025 public bodies, fewer than at any time since "Public Bodies" was first published in 1979.

  In parallel with the continuing commitment to reduce the number of NDPBs, the Government also remain committed to ensuring that new NDPBs and other bodies are set up only where it can be demonstrated that this is the most cost-effective and appropriate means of carrying out the function concerned.

  Finally, this Government also remain firmly committed to making appointments on merit to the boards of public bodies and to equality of opportunity with the aim of ensuring that the people who serve on public bodies are broadly representative of the diversity of the United Kingdom. To achieve this, the opportunity to play a part in public life by serving on a public body must be open
  566W
  to all, whether or not they are disabled and irrespective of their age, ethnicity or gender as well as their geographical or social background. Women and men should hold an equal share of public appointments and a greater proportion of appointments should be held by people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people.

  We have made some progress towards these goals. At 31 March 2001 women held 34 per cent. of appointments to the bodies detailed in "Public Bodies 2001" and 4.8 per cent. were held by people from ethnic minority backgrounds; in both cases this is a small increase on the position at 31 March 2000. Similar information on the proportion of appointments held by disabled people is not yet available but it will be given in the next edition of "Public Bodies". There has been some continuing progress but there is more to do. I am therefore also pleased to announce that we have today published "Public Bodies: Opening Up Public Appointments 2002–2005", which sets out for each Department its plans for increasing the diversity of the boards of the public bodies for which it is responsible. These targets, and the activities aimed at ensuring that they are met and that our overall goals are achieved.

  Copies of "Public Bodies 2001" and "Public Bodies: Opening up Appointments: 2002–2005" have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Both publications will be accessible via the Cabinet Office's internet website.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Detainees
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he consented to British nationals detained in Afghanistan being transferred to Guantanamo Bay prior to the determination of their status. [32294]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have had many discussions with the US authorities about the detention of British nationals. The US authorities informed us in advance that three British detainees would be transferred from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay on 11 January. They also informed us in advance of the transfer of a further two British detainees on 11 February. As the detaining power, it is for the US authorities to decide on the handling and status of the detainees.

  Plain English Campaign
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact his Department has had in the last year with the Plain English Campaign, and if he will make a statement. [35849]

  Peter Hain
  The Plain English Campaign have written to me in connection with my efforts to explain the Government's policy on Europe to the British public. I am aware of their excellent work.

  Ispat International
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he
  567W
  has received from employees or directors of Ispat International between May 1997 and December 2001; and if he will list them by date and subject. [33113]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I receive representations from many groups eager to press their case.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list meetings between(a) departmental Ministers and (b) senior departmental officials and representatives of Ispat International between May 1997 and December 2001, indicating the date of each meeting. [33114]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

DEFENCE

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30184]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 707W.

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department is of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. [35339]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 2–3W, to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).

  Former Service Personnel
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems are in place to monitor the number of former members of the armed services who become homeless within 18 months of leaving the armed forces. [35271]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not itself monitor homelessness among those who have left the services but we are able to keep track of the number of rough sleepers with an ex-service background through work with the Rough Sleepers Unit (RSU). The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report published in 1998 identified that between one quarter and one fifth of rough sleepers had been in the armed forces at some stage, predominantly some years before as national service men. The MOD has 568W
  since been working in partnership with the RSU and the charitable sector to reduce some of the most acute cases of homelessness, those sleeping rough on the streets.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have confirmed that interim analysis of rough sleeping data collected in November 2001 shows that the percentage of rough sleepers with an armed forces background has decreased markedly since the 1998 SEU report. This is clearly good news and provides strong evidence of the success that can be achieved by Government working in partnership with the voluntary sector.

  Improvements that have been delivered by this partnership include the establishment of the Single Person Accommodation Service for Ex Service (SPACES) project at Catterick Garrison in 1999 which has already provided a range of housing and other support services to over 550 vulnerable people leaving the services. This exceeds the first target of 400.

  We recognise there is further work to be done in this area and, as part of the Veterans' Initiative we are looking at improvements to resettlement arrangements for the most vulnerable service leavers. This will include addressing the risk of homelessness.

  HMS Vengeance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many missiles were collected by HMS Vengeance in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [32709]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to be awarded to those members of the Retired Officers' Corps who are serving with HM forces. [33492]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal will be awarded to those serving members of the armed forces, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the emergency services who meet the stipulated eligibility criteria. Members of the armed forces who are recruited to the retired officer grades in the Ministry of Defence at the conclusion of their service become civil servants. They are no longer serving in the armed forces and nor are they members of the emergency services. As is the case for civil servants generally, they are not eligible to receive the medal.

  Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34998]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has awarded the following numbers of contracts to the above-named companies since 1997.
  569W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2002

  Arthur Anderson

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Deloitte Touche

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Ernst and Young

  3

  2

  2

  1

  0

  KPMG

  6

  6

  1

  13

  11

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  3

  7

  6

  5

  5

  The values of individual contracts are withheld under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information but the total values of contracts awarded to each company is approximately as follows:

  £million

  Arthur Andersen

  2.5

  Deloitte Touche

  1.3

  Ernst and Young

  1.7

  KPMG

  54.8

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  13.9

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35924]

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

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effect of the Working Time Directive on his Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps he is taking to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement. [35886]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is the Ministry of Defence's policy to encourage civilian staff, at all levels, to move away from the long hours culture. Ten members of the senior civil service have signed opt outs. Officials are trying to establish the number of civil servants, other than senior civil servants, who have signed the voluntary opt out.

  I will write to the hon. Member when this work is complete and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  RAF Eurofighters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which squadron will be the Operational Evaluation Unit for Eurofighter; and if he will make a statement. [35648]

  Mr. Ingram
  The operational evaluation unit for the Eurofighter will be 17 Squadron.

  Naval Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much compensation has been awarded for insufficient work load in each of the last three years to(a) DML in Devonport, (b) SLM in Portsmouth and (c) BRCD; and if he will make a statement. [36300]
  570W
  Mr. Ingram
  In the last three years a total of £2.1 million has been paid to the dockyard companies in compensation where they have been unable to otherwise recover overheads due to changes in the naval maintenance programme. Such payments are made only where it has not been possible to reflect the changing work load in the annually agreed charging rates or to mitigate its impact by allocating other work. I am withholding details of individual payments to the companies in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to commercial activities.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guarantees his Department has given to(a) DML in Devonport, (b) SLM in Portsmouth and (c) BRCD as to their future work load in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [36301]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the 1997 dockyard sale agreements undertakings were given to the two dockyard companies, DML at Devonport and BRDL at Rosyth, as to their share of the future naval ship maintenance work load for an agreed period. Similar arrangements apply to FSL, who operate within Portsmouth Naval Base, under the GOCO (Government Owned Contractor Operated) contract awarded to them in 1998.

  The Warship Support Modernisation Initiative, which is looking at ways to modernise support arrangements across all naval bases and dockyards, involves negotiations with the companies with a view to increasing the proportion of the surface ship refit and repair programme opened up to competition. Any undertakings on future work load will be dependent on the outcome of this initiative.

  Tipnor Shooting Ranges
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Tipnor shooting ranges in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [36302]

  Mr. Ingram
  In November 1998, against a background of the Strategic Defence Review, the Navy Board directed the chief executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to study the size and shape of the future training estate and to make recommendations for improvement given the lower trainee throughput that is expected in 2010–15. The consequent review was in advance of, and is informing, the current tri-Service Defence Training Review (DTR).

  In July 2001 I announced proposed changes in the naval training estate. All naval training estate is now being considered in detail and this includes the Tipner firing range at Portsmouth. While alternative options are being studied, no decision has yet been made on the future of these ranges. Due account will be taken of proposed local transport improvement schemes and other local environmental issues before any decision is reached.

  Naval Air Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest projection is of the in-service dates for the naval version of the Joint Strike Fighter and the new aircraft carrier; and if he will make a statement. [36306]
  571W
  Dr. Moonie
  On current plans the in service date for the first of the two new aircraft carriers and the Joint Strike Fighters which will operate from it is 2012.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the decision on which version of the air strike fighter for the new aircraft carrier to be commissioned by the Royal Navy will be used; and if he will make a statement. [36308]

  Dr. Moonie
  We expect a decision on which variant of the Joint Strike Fighter best meets our future Joint Combat Aircraft requirement to be taken by autumn this year.

  Surge Production Capacity
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what categories of military equipment there are contractual arrangements with the manufacturer to provide surge production capacity for times of conflict. [35038]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence aims to ensure that sufficient production capacity is available to meet current defence planning assumptions. I am withholding the information with regard to specific arrangements for surge production under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been appointed by him to official bodies and NDPBs coming under the aegis of his Department in the last three years; and who they were. [33349]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information about the numbers and remuneration of ministerial appointments to public bodies, including the names of chairpersons, is included in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and it is also published on the Cabinet Office's website, www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include information on appointments as at 31 March 2001, will be published shortly.

  There have been 190 appointments to Ministry of Defence non-departmental public bodies over the period January 1999 to December 2001, including those sponsored by the War Pension Agency, which was part of the then Department of Social Security until July 2001.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with details of the individuals appointed and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34159]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information on expenditure on external assistance, categorised by type of work and top level budget holder, is contained in the Ministry of Defence's annual return of expenditure on external assistance. Copies have been placed in the 572W
  Library of the House, covering the period 1996–97 to 1999–2000, and the return for financial year 2000–01 is currently being staffed.

  MOD Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many MOD houses are empty; and if he will make a statement; [34032]

  (2) how many MOD houses have been empty for more than six months; and if he will make a statement. [34606]

  Dr. Moonie
  At the end of January 2002 there were some 10,500 empty married quarters in mainland UK. Of these, over 3,800 are in the course of disposal; some 2,000 are currently awaiting incoming families; a further 2,200 are being held for future unit deployments and some 1,100 are empty awaiting modernisation.

  Some 4,500 married quarters in mainland UK have been empty for six months or more at the end of January 2002. Currently, 2,350 of this total are in the course of disposal. A further 1,600 are either awaiting future deployments or are empty pending refurbishment. The remaining 550 are subject to a rolling review of their long term retention.

  Over many years, there has been a continuing decline in demand for service family housing. Currently, however, the Defence Housing Executive is making good progress with a substantial disposal programme. The number of disposals achieved since 1 January 2000 will shortly reach 10,000, with some thousands more to be disposed of during 2002–03

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD houses have been sold to the private sector, by year, since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34608]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1996, the great majority of the defence housing stock was sold to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) and leased back for service use. In response to the subsequent fall in demand from service families, many properties which are surplus to longer term service requirements have been, or will be, disposed of, but most such disposals result in release of the property back to AHL and thus do not constitute sales by the Ministry of Defence to the private sector. Disposals of non-AHL residential properties by MOD over the period are as follows.

  Year

  Properties

  1997–98

  537

  1998–99

  500

  1999–2000

  208

  2000–01

  646

  2001–021

  175

  1 So far

  Service Pensions
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what underlay the decision for service pensions to be inherited by the person who was the spouse at the time of service; [35309]

  (2) what plans he has to review rules for the inheritance of service pensions by surviving spouses. [35310]
  573W
  Mr. Ingram
  It was a normal and well-established principle of occupational schemes, including those in public sector, that to qualify for a widow's or widower's pension, the widow or widower of the pension had to be married to him or her at the time he or she was engaged in the occupation covered by the scheme. The Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) was similar to other public service schemes in this aspect. At the time, it was seen as reasonable to limit pensions to those widows or widowers who had shared at least some of their husband's or wife's service life.

  Post-retirement widow and widower pensions (PRWP) were introduced as a requirement of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. Provision was made in the AFPS for the payment of pensions to widows or widowers of service pensioners who married (or remarried) after retirement, but this change benefited only the widows of those giving service on or after 6 April 1978, and the widowers of those giving service on or after 6 April 1989. Only service on or after those dates was taken into account when calculating the level of pension and there is no distinction between servicemen and other public sector employees in this respect.

  The armed forces pension review has looked at PRWP but has no plans to extend the provision to those who left before the qualifying dates. The review, however, has recommended, under the new scheme, paying a pension to a child born after the pensioner's retirement. Under the current scheme only children born, or conceived, while the member was serving are covered.

  In divorce settlements, pension sharing has been available in respect of divorce and nullity proceedings that begin on or after 1 December 2000. Under pension sharing, a percentage of the capitalised value of the pension rights which an AFPS member has accrued to date may be allocated to his or her former spouse to provide that former spouse with pension rights of her or his own. Pension sharing is not available to unmarried partners.

  MOD Shooting Ranges
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what MOD shooting ranges there are in Hampshire; who uses them; and if he will make a statement. [36303]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's outdoor live firing ranges in Hampshire are:

  Tipner Range

  Browndown Training Camp

  Barton Stacey

  Chilcomb

  Longmoor Training Area—(4 ranges)

  Moody's Down

  Solent Training Area.

  The users are:

  1. Regular and Reserve, University Officer Training and Cadet Units (including visiting foreign forces)

  2. Police

  3. National Rifle Association and civilian rifle clubs

  4. Bodies conducting trials, for example QinetiQ.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on(a) decontamination and (b) disposal of the site of former RAF Chilmark. [36135]

  Dr. Moonie
  The explosive ordnance disposal exercise at RAF Chilmark is continuing. Approximately half of this 52 hectare (317.5 acre) site should be certified as clear by autumn 2002.

  A considerable section of the site has already been sold on the open market. Defence Estates is currently in discussion with the representatives of a trust, which has been constituted with a view to buying an area of the site which is of high conservation and wildlife value. It is hoped that this sale will be concluded during 2002.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to change the(a) resource departmental expenditure limit and (b) administration costs limit for her Department in 2001. [37065]

  Hilary Benn
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Department for International Development Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 will be increased from £3,127,152,749 to £3,140,099,492. The administration cost limit will increase from £67,561,000 to £76,661,000. Within this DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  90,446

  New DEL

  2,811,939

  of which:

  Voted

  2,139,919

  Non-voted

  672,020

  Capital

  Change

  -71,500

  New DEL

  328,160

  of which:

  Voted

  20,447

  Non-voted

  307,713

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  a transfer of £2,000,000 resource from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to the Bilateral Development Assistance;

  a transfer of £3,500,000 resource from the Central Reserve as a part contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East;

  a transfer of £12,532,492 resource from the Central Reserve for HIPC 100 per cent.;

  to take up DEL end year flexibility of £8,000,000 resource on administration costs;

  an increase in the Bilateral Administration-in-Aid of £867,000 resource, and a corresponding increase in the gross provision;

  575W

  a transfer of £4,005,000 resource from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Global Conflict Prevention;

  a transfer of £500,000 from the sub-Saharan Africa—Programme voted expenditure to the Ministry of Defence;

  a transfer of £12,129,000 of UNPROFOR receipts from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to DFID's non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP);

  a transfer of £3,000,000 from DFID's non-voted DUP to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for Conflict Prevention in Sierra Leone;

  a transfer of £20,587,000 from DFID's non-voted DUP to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for Nigeria and Burundi and to cover increased commitments in peacekeeping;

  a transfer of £42,500,000 from Multilateral Capital to Bilateral Development Assistance resource;

  a transfer of £35,000,000 from non-voted Capital to Bilateral Development Assistance resource.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  a transfer of £42,500,000 from Multilateral Capital to Bilateral Development Assistance resource;

  a reduction of £2,000,000 in the amount of Bilateral non-operating Administration-in-Aid;

  a reduction of £4,000,000 in the amount of Multilateral non-operating Administration-in-Aid;

  a transfer of £35,000,000 from non-voted Capital to Bilateral Development Assistance resource.

  CDC
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the performance of the CDC Capital Partners. [34654]

  Hilary Benn
  CDC met all the Investment Policy targets in 2001. When it is available, I will place a copy of the audited annual report and accounts for 2001 in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 5W, how many of the investments made in poorer countries by the CDC were investments made in countries in sub-Sahara Africa in the years from 1998 to 2000; and if she will break these investments down by country. [34328]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:

  1998–41 out of 72 investments;

  1999–34 out of 60 investments;

  2000–26 out of 60 investments.

  This breaks down, by country, as follows.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Malawi

  4

  4

  1

  Mozambique

  3

  2

  1

  Zambia

  3

  3

  2

  Zimbabwe

  4

  3

  1

  Kenya

  5

  4

  4

  Tanzania

  11

  6

  9

  Uganda

  5

  2

  1

  Swaziland

  2

  3

  2

  Cote d'Ivoire

  1

  2

  2

  Ghana

  2

  5

  2

  Nigeria

  0

  0

  1

  Sierra Leone

  1

  0

  0

  576W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 5W, how many private equity funds were jointly managed by the CDC in the years from 1996 to 2000, broken down by country. [34315]

  Hilary Benn
  Between 1996 and 2000 CDC did not jointly manage any private equity funds. In 2001 CDC formed a joint venture fund management company with Norfund, creating Aureos Capital. A series of country funds which hitherto had been solely managed by CDC were rolled up as part of Aureos Capital and are now jointly managed. These funds and their country of origin are shown as follows.

  1996—10 funds (Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Tanzania, Mauritius, Zambia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Central America, South Africa)

  1997—11 funds (as in 1996, plus Pacific islands)

  1998—13 funds (as in 1997, plus Mozambique and a second fund in Tanzania)

  1999—15 funds (as in 1998, plus Indian ocean and Caribbean)

  2000—15 funds (as in 1999, plus China, minus South Africa).

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 5W, how much was invested in the private equity funds which are jointly managed by the CDC in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 broken down by country. [34327]

  Hilary Benn
  No private equity funds were jointly managed by CDC in the years concerned. A series of country funds which CDC had managed on its own became jointly managed with Aureos Capital in 2001. Information giving an exact breakdown of the amount invested in each of these funds in 1998, 1999 and 2000 is not centrally available.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 5W, on the Commonwealth Development Corporation, whether the jointly managed series of private equity funds are subject to the same targets of 70 per cent. of new investments being made in poorer countries and 50 per cent. being made in sub-Sahara Africa. [34329]

  Hilary Benn
  Yes. The targets do not apply to each fund separately, but to the total of CDC's activities.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will take steps to encourage UK supermarkets to stock a greater range of fair trade products. [36082]

  Hilary Benn
  Fair Trade (FT) is a small but significant part of the international trading system that aims to build more equitable trading partnerships between north and south, by offering better prices and better trading terms to small and medium-sized producer groups in developing countries.
  577W
  The growth in sales of FT labelled products in the UK over the past five years has been dramatic—albeit from a low base. Moreover, whereas in the past, FT products were sold only through dedicated FT outlets, nowadays FT foods and beverages are to be found in an increasing number of UK supermarkets. Some retailers have even launched own label FT products and there is every indication of this trend continuing as more FT standards are agreed and consumer demand for FT increases.

  DFID has provided financial support to the media campaigns of the Fair Trade Foundation designed specifically to raise both supermarket and consumer awareness of FT. In particular DFID funds the Fair Trade Foundation's annual Fair Trade Fortnight (4–17 March 2002) which will draw shoppers' attention to the increasing range of FT products available in UK supermarkets.

  Ghana
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on Ghana's long-term debt. [34758]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has provided occasional technical assistance through "Debt Relief International" (DRI) to the Government of Ghana since 1998 to help them undertake debt sustainability analysis, develop a debt reduction strategy, and build capacity in the Aid and Debt Management Unit of the Ministry of Finance. DFID has not commissioned any separate research, nor commissioned any independent evaluation of the DRI's work in Ghana, although DRI's analysis has been largely verified by the World Bank and IMF during their HIPC related assessments of Ghana's debt sustainability.

TREASURY

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33245]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 58W.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the estimated charge in tax revenue following the removal of IR 119 tax relief for students on self-funded vocational training for the financial year after the decision was implemented; [36024]
  578W
  (2) how many students were affected by the removal of IR 119 tax relief on self-funded vocational training; and if he will make a statement. [36022]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 February 2002]: Vocational Training Relief (VTR) was abolished with effect from 31 August 2000. The estimated cost of tax relief was around £60 million in the last full year it was available (1999–2000), and about £30 million in 2000–01. It was estimated that there were probably about 200,000 people claiming VTR in 1998–99. These figures are based on the number of claims received and the amount reclaimed by training providers from the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated benefit was of allowing tax relief on employers' contributions to fund vocational training for their employees in the last financial year. [36023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 February 2000]: The information is not available.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the aggregates tax on existing PFI/PPP contracts. [35045]

  Mr. Boateng
  An increase in the price of aggregates will provide an incentive to use aggregates efficiently and encourage wider use of recycled aggregates, regardless of whether they are being used in public or private sector projects.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the changes to Scottish local authority spending as a result of the introduction of the aggregates tax. [35046]

  Mr. Boateng
  As confirmed in the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318) published in November 2001, the Government are introducing the aggregates levy in April 2002. Scottish local authority spending is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to reduce the administrative and technical difficulties in allowing quarries to act as aggregates tax collectors. [35043]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise has consulted extensively with the quarrying industry to ensure that accounting for aggregates levy will be as straightforward as possible.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the introduction of the aggregates tax; [35048]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on quarries of the implementation of the aggregates tax. [35047]

  Mr. Boateng
  A regulatory impact assessment for the aggregates levy was published at the time of Budget 2000. It is available from the Customs and Excise website.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage increase the proposed aggregates tax will add to the average price of a tonne of aggregate in(a) Scotland and (b) England. [35042]
  579W
  Mr. Boateng
  The levy's impact on the cost of aggregate will be dependent upon the commercial decisions of those in the supply chain.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to extend the aggregates tax to include imported aggregate and concrete-based products. [35044]

  Mr. Boateng
  Imported aggregate will be subject to levy.

  The Government have no proposals to extend the levy to include imports of concrete-based products.

  Small Enterprises (Allowances)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of 100 per cent. first year allowances for small enterprises spending on information and communication technology. [36102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is too early to assess the impact of the scheme, which was introduced less than two years ago as part of a package of measures to help businesses get on-line. The Inland Revenue are monitoring the use of the allowances.

  VAT
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether public authorities are able to reclaim VAT on leased vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [35847]

  Mr. Boateng
  In general, public authorities which draw their funding directly from local taxation are able to recover the VAT incurred on all purchases relating to their statutory non-business activities under the section 33 VAT refund scheme. Except where specifically covered by the section 41 (3) refund scheme for certain contracted-out services, the VAT incurred by bodies which draw their funding directly from central Government may not generally be recovered, and is instead taken into account when that funding is allocated.

  Revenue (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) revenue raised and (b) revenue spent by the Exchequer in the Greater Manchester area in the last 12 months. [34883]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Estimates of total revenue raised and spent by the Exchequer in Greater Manchester are not available.

  Inland Revenue Staff
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 695W, if he will make a statement on the changes in staff employed by the Inland Revenue. [36103]
  580W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The reasons for the staffing changes in the Inland Revenue shown in the answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 695W, for the period 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2000 were:

  1. On 1 April 1999, 8,400 staff joined the department from the Contributions Agency.

  2. On 1 October 1999, 3,700 staff joined the department from the Benefits Agency.

  3. The further increase of around 245 was due to increases in work loads.

  Capital Gains Taper
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the behavioural impact of the introduction of the taper on capital gains in April 1998. [36101]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We intend to evaluate taper relief once the system has had time for its effects to become measurable.

  Reputational Externalities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 705W, on reputational externalities, if he will state whether the assumptions used for analysing the London Underground public-private partnerships are identical to those recommended in "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government"; and if he will make a statement. [34888]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The appraisal of the London Underground PPPs conforms with the guidance contained in the said document.

  Northern Ireland Financial Statement
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what publication is produced by the Treasury to replace the Northern Ireland Financial Statement [34862]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Northern Ireland Financial Statement was published each year by the Department of Finance and Personnel until 1999–2000. Following devolution, details of the Northern Ireland Executive's annual budget are presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and published each December.

  I have asked the Department of Finance and Personnel to provide the hon. Gentleman with a copy of the 2002–03 budget published on 3 December 2001 and approved by the Assembly on 11 December 2001. A copy of the budget may also be found on the Department's website at http://www.nics.gov.uk/dfp.htm.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what communications have taken place between Ministers, officials and advisers and the City of London Corporation in relation to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill since 1997. [35658]
  581W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The City of London (Ward Elections) Bill is a private Bill and, in so far as the Government have an interest, responsibility rests with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  National Insurance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 742W, on national insurance, which assumptions concerning SERPS were used to come to his answer; and if he will make a statement. [35825]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of £750 million is the increase in national insurance employee contributions accruing in 2002–03. Assumptions for SERPS would not materially affect this estimate.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) co-operation and (b) community benefit societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 with a registered address in (i) London, (ii) Norfolk, (iii) Hampshire and (iv) Lancashire. [35973]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not readily available. I can, however, give an estimate of the number of Industrial and Provident Societies as a whole of each of these regions:

  1,088 have a registered office address in London;

  93 in Norfolk;

  203 in Hampshire;

  184 in Lancashire.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of adults had internet access in(a) St. Helens, South,(b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside,(d) Manchester,(e) the north-west RDA region,(f) the other RDA regions,(g) England and(h) the UK in each of the last five years. [35420]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 14 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding data about the percentage of adults who had internet access in (a) St. Helen's South, (b) the St. Helen's MBC area (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the North West RDA region, (f) the other RDA regions, (g) England and (h) the UK in each of the last five years. (35420)
  582W
  Currently the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has available regional information for households but not adults. Presented below are the percentages of households with home access to the Internet in each of the government office regions (this is the lowest geographical breakdown available). This information is provided for the 1998–1999, 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 financial years. These data were not collected prior to 1998–1999, the data for the 2001–2002 financial year will be available in June 2002.

  Percentage of households with access to the Internet by Government Office Regions 1998–2001

  Percentage

  April to March

  Government Office Region

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  North East

  7

  14

  25

  North West

  9

  18

  32

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  8

  15

  29

  East Midlands

  9

  19

  32

  West Midlands

  8

  20

  33

  East

  11

  22

  35

  London

  16

  25

  40

  South East

  13

  24

  39

  South West

  9

  19

  37

  England

  11

  20

  34

  Wales

  7

  15

  22

  Scotland

  8

  14

  24

  Northern Ireland

  5

  11

  20

  UK

  10

  19

  32

  Note:

  Like all estimates from sample surveys these figures are subject to sampling variability. This is greater for regional than for UK estimates.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey (April 1998 to March 2001); Expenditure and Food Survey (April 2001 onwards).

  Secondments
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and(g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33204]

  Ruth Kelly
  According to central Treasury records there have been no people seconded between BP, Shell, Enron, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Texaco and TotalFinaElf and the Treasury in the years 1999–2000, 2000–01, and from April 2001 to date.

  White Collar Workers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the work force in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the north-west RDA area, (f) the other RDA regions and (g) England, are civilian scientists and engineers; [35413]
  583W
  (2) what percentage of the work force were office workers in (a) St. Helens, South, (b) the St. Helens MBC area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the north-west RDA region, (f) the other RDA regions and (g) England, in each of the last five years; [35414]

  (3) what percentage of the work force were employed in (a) managerial, (b) professional and (c) technical positions in (i) St. Helens, South, (ii) the St. Helens MBC area, (iii) Merseyside, (iv) Manchester, (v) the north-west RDA region, (vi) the other RDA regions and (vii) England, in each of the last five years. [35415]

  Percentages of total employment by occupation group in main job1,2, autumn (September to November) 2001, not seasonally adjusted

  Government office regions and St. Helens metropolitan borough council

  All in employment3(thousand)(=100%)

  Managers and senior officials

  Professional occupations:

  of which 211 and 212 science and engineering professionals

  Associate, professional and technical

  Administrative and secretarial

  United Kingdom

  28,288

  14.1

  11.5

  1.9

  13.7

  13.2

  England

  23,923

  14.4

  11.5

  1.9

  14.0

  13.3

  North West:

  3.103

  12.5

  10.8

  1.8

  13.1

  13.7

  Greater Manchester

  1,198

  11.6

  10.0

  1.2

  13.1

  14.4

  Merseyside

  563

  12.2

  12.0

  1.8

  14.5

  14.6

  St. Helens MBC

  84

  4—

  14.4

  4—

  4—

  12.4

  Rest of North West

  1,342

  13.5

  11.1

  2.4

  12.5

  12.7

  North East

  1,101

  9.8

  10.4

  2.1

  12.6

  13.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,338

  12.5

  9.8

  1.8

  11.8

  11.7

  East Midlands

  2,058

  12.4

  9.6

  1.8

  11.8

  12.4

  West Midlands

  2,511

  13.9

  10.4

  1.8

  11.4

  12.9

  Eastern

  2,748

  15.0

  11.2

  2.4

  14.2

  13.8

  London

  3,471

  17.5

  14.9

  1.2

  19.2

  15.2

  South East

  4,147

  16.6

  12.6

  2.2

  14.5

  13.3

  South West

  2,446

  14.1

  11.0

  2.0

  14.2

  12.2

  Wales

  1,263

  11.9

  11.2

  2.0

  11.4

  11.7

  Scotland

  2,391

  12.5

  12.2

  2.5

  12.7

  12.5

  Northern Ireland

  711

  12.3

  10.4

  4—

  9.8

  13.7

  1 The number of people employed in each Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000 occupation group as a percentage of all in employment.

  2 Base for percentage excludes people who did not state their occupation.

  3 Includes people who did not state their occupation.

  4 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much certified timber has been used in the refurbishment of the Treasury building; and what proportion of the total timber purchased for this refurbishment this represents. [35687]

  Ruth Kelly
  A significant majority of all timber used in the refurbishment already existed in the building. Exchequer Partnership plc, the consortium undertaking the refurbishment, has satisfied itself as far as is reasonably practical that all new timber used is certified or obtained from sustainable sources. Preference is always given to timber and timber products carrying the
  584W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 14 February 2002
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about (i) civilian engineers, (ii) office workers and (iii) employment in managerial, professional and technical occupations.
  The table overleaf provides the available information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for autumn (September to November) 2001. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis. "Office workers" are not specifically identified in the LFS, but many of the people included in the occupation categories shown in the table will have jobs which are office-based.

  FSC trademark or other label from an equivalent internationally recognised independent certification system for good forest management.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action was taken by his Department to ensure that timber procured for the refurbishment of the Treasury building was sourced(a) sustainably and (b) legally. [35688]

  Ruth Kelly
  Under the terms of the contract, Exchequer Partnership plc warrants that neither it nor its sub-contractors have committed any illegal act, and the Treasury has the power to terminate the contract if they are found to be in breach. All new timber used in the project has, wherever possible, come from sustainable sources as required by the contract.
  585W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on timber for the refurbishment of the Treasury building. [35689]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Academic Qualifications
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the work force had(a) an advanced degree, (b) a BA, (c) an associated degree and (d) undertaken higher or further education course work in (i) St. Helens, South, (ii) the St. Helens MBC area,

  Percentages of working age1 people in employment by highest qualification2, autumn (September to November), quarters 1997 to 2001, not seasonally adjusted

  Government office regions and St. Helens metropolitan borough council

  All of working age1 in employment3,4 (thousand)

  Higher degree

  First degree

  Other degree

  Other higher education below degree level

  Autumn (September to November) 1997

  UK

  26,380

  3.9

  9.8

  1.4

  9.5

  England

  22,269

  3.9

  9.9

  1.5

  9.1

  North West:

  2,936

  3.1

  8.9

  1.3

  10.2

  Greater Manchester

  1,120

  3.9

  8.4

  1.1

  9.9

  Merseyside

  535

  3.3

  8.1

  5—

  10.1

  St. Helens

  85

  5—

  5—

  5—

  13.6

  Rest of North West

  1,281

  2.3

  9.6

  1.3

  10.5

  North East

  1,067

  2.7

  6.3

  1.7

  8.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,204

  3.8

  8.3

  1.4

  8.6

  East Midlands

  1,927

  3.1

  8.3

  1.3

  8.5

  West Midlands

  2,391

  3.0

  8.3

  0.9

  8.8

  Eastern

  2,529

  3.2

  8.8

  1.3

  8.0

  London

  3,168

  7.4

  15.9

  1.9

  8.2

  South East

  3,818

  4.0

  10.6

  2.1

  9.3

  South West

  2,228

  3.3

  9.1

  1.3

  11.1

  Wales

  1.179

  3.5

  7.8

  1.2

  10.6

  Scotland

  2,253

  3.9

  9.5

  0.9

  12.8

  Northern Ireland

  680

  3.9

  9.4

  5—

  8.9

  Autumn (September to November) 1998

  UK

  26,735

  4.4

  10.3

  1.6

  9.9

  England

  22,593

  4.3

  10.5

  1.7

  9.4

  North West:

  2,969

  3.4

  9.3

  1.2

  10.2

  Greater Manchester

  1.137

  3.6

  9.5

  1.0

  9.6

  Merseyside

  514

  3.4

  8.4

  2.2

  10.1

  St. Helens

  77

  5—

  5—

  5—

  15.7

  Rest of North West

  1,318

  3.3

  9.5

  1.0

  10.9

  North East

  1,052

  3.2

  7.5

  1.1

  9.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,241

  3.7

  8.4

  1.5

  9.1

  East Midlands

  1,943

  3.1

  9.1

  1.9

  8.3

  West Midlands

  2,413

  3.6

  7.6

  1.2

  9.2

  Eastern

  2,544

  3.9

  9.7

  2.0

  8.4

  London

  3,274

  7.5

  17.1

  2.0

  8.6

  South East

  3,892

  5.0

  11.7

  2.2

  10.1

  South West

  2,256

  3.5

  9.3

  1.7

  11.1

  Wales

  1,187

  4.7

  7.9

  1.0

  11.2

  Scotland

  2,279

  4.5

  10.3

  1.0

  13.6

  Northern Ireland

  676

  4.7

  9.0

  5—

  9.3

  586W
  (iii) Merseyside, (iv) Manchester, (v) the North West RDA region, (vi) the other RDA regions and (vii) England, in each of the last five years. [35416]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 14 February 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about qualifications in the workforce. (35416)
  The table below gives the available information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for the autumn (September to November) quarters of each year from 1997 to 2001.
  587W

  Percentages of working age 1 people in employment by highest qualification,2 autumn (September to November), quarters 1997 to 2001, not seasonally adjusted

  Government office regions and St. Helens metropolitan borough council

  All of working age 1 in employment3,4(thousand)

  Higher degree

  First degree

  Other degree

  Other higher education below degree level

  Autumn (September to November) 1999

  UK

  26,997

  4.6

  10.7

  1.7

  9.7

  England

  22,830

  4.7

  10.8

  1.8

  9.2

  North West:

  3,042

  3.9

  9.4

  1.3

  10.0

  Greater Manchester

  1,167

  4.0

  9.3

  1.3

  9.1

  Merseyside

  546

  4.4

  9.3

  5—

  9.6

  St. Helens

  77

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Rest of North West

  1,329

  3.6

  9.5

  1.1

  11.1

  North East

  1,064

  2.9

  7.3

  1.0

  10.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,265

  3.9

  8.2

  1.8

  9.5

  East Midlands

  1,960

  4.2

  9.3

  1.4

  8.4

  West Midlands

  2,408

  3.7

  8.7

  1.2

  9.3

  Eastern

  2,581

  4.2

  10.1

  1.7

  8.2

  London

  3,296

  8.0

  17.7

  2.1

  7.4

  South East

  3,922

  5.2

  11.7

  2.6

  9.8

  South West

  2,293

  4.1

  10.0

  2.0

  10.4

  Wales

  1,215

  4.0

  8.8

  5—

  11.6

  Scotland

  2,270

  4.4

  10.7

  0.9

  14.2

  Northern Ireland

  681

  4.3

  11.1

  5—

  8.6

  Autumn (September to November) 2000

  UK

  27,215

  4.8

  11.5

  1.7

  9.7

  England

  22,971

  4.8

  11.7

  1.8

  9.2

  North West:

  3,020

  4.0

  10.9

  1.1

  10.2

  Greater Manchester

  1,162

  4.3

  10.9

  1.2

  10.0

  Merseyside

  542

  4.7

  10.9

  5—

  10.9

  St. Helens

  69

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Rest of North West

  1,316

  3.4

  10.9

  1.1

  10.2

  North East

  1,083

  3.6

  7.8

  1.5

  8.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,291

  3.9

  9.0

  1.4

  9.9

  East Midlands

  1,963

  3.7

  10.5

  1.1

  9.3

  West Midlands

  2,382

  3.8

  9.6

  1.7

  10.0

  Eastern

  2,640

  4.2

  9.9

  2.0

  8.0

  London

  3,302

  8.1

  19.1

  2.4

  7.3

  South East

  3,958

  5.5

  12.1

  2.2

  9.1

  South West

  2,332

  4.0

  11.0

  1.8

  10.5

  Wales

  1,212

  4.9

  9.7

  1.2

  11.4

  Scotland

  2,344

  4.7

  10.4

  1,4

  14.3

  Northern Ireland

  689

  4.6

  11.1

  5—

  7.9

  Autumn (September to November) 2001

  UK

  27,425

  5.2

  11.9

  1.5

  9.3

  England

  23,176

  5.2

  12.0

  1.6

  8.8

  North West:

  3,020

  4.4

  10.3

  1.1

  9.6

  Greater Manchester

  1,169

  3.4

  10.4

  1.0

  9.2

  Merseyside

  549

  5.4

  10.3

  5—

  9.9

  St. Helens

  83

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Rest of North West

  1,302

  4.9

  10.2

  1.2

  9.7

  North East

  1,080

  4.3

  8.3

  1.0

  9.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,280

  4.3

  9.6

  1.0

  8.8

  East Midlands

  2,003

  3.8

  9.5

  1.3

  8.1

  West Midlands

  2,434

  4.2

  9.8

  1.2

  8.7

  588W

  589W

  Percentages of working age 1 people in employment by highest qualification2, autumn (September to November), quarters 1997 to 2001, not seasonally adjusted

  Government office regions and St. Helens metropolitan borough council

  All of working age 1 in employment3,4 (thousand)

  Higher degree

  First degree

  Other degree

  Other higher education below degree level

  Eastern

  2,656

  4.1

  10.5

  1.9

  9.0

  London

  3,366

  9.3

  20.2

  2.5

  7.4

  South East

  3,988

  5.6

  13.1

  1.9

  8.7

  South West

  2,350

  4.3

  10.6

  1.8

  10.1

  Wales

  1,223

  4.8

  8.7

  1.1

  11.5

  Scotland

  2,334

  5.3

  12.2

  1.4

  13.7

  Northern Ireland

  692

  5.0

  11.6

  5—

  8.6

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2 Base for percentages excludes people who did not state their qualifications.

  3 Includes people who did not state their qualifications.

  4 = 100 per cent.

  5 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been paid in total to people who have been adversely affected by the problems with the NIRS2 computer system, broken down by year. [35287]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The delay in the implementation of NIRS2 caused arrears of work in both the Inland Revenue and the then DSS. These arrears have been managed through an integrated recovery plan. The compensation costs paid to customers as a result of the delays are:

  Million

  Year paid

  IR

  DSS

  Total

  1998–99

  21.5

  —

  21.5

  1999–2000

  19.5

  2.5

  22.0

  2000–01

  14.0

  1.3

  15.3

  2001–02

  2.8

  0.7

  3.5

  Total

  57.8

  4.5

  62.3

  The compensation costs paid in 2000–01 have previously been overstated. The actual amounts paid from the National Insurance Fund are set out.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer since the NIRS2 computer system first became operational, how many people have received national insurance contribution rebates after the date they were due; how much money has been paid to these people in compensation; and what his best estimate is of the total value of late rebates that are outstanding [35285]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have paid over £57.8 million in compensation for late rebate payments since 1998. This is for compensation paid, on behalf of individuals, to pension providers for the late payment of NI age-related rebates for 1997–98.

  Rebate payments, together with any compensation due, are paid directly as an aggregate amount to the pension provider, not to the individual scheme member. The
  590W
  information in relation to these payments is not held in a way that makes it possible to quantify the number of people whose rebates for 1997–98 were paid late. It is not possible to estimate the total value of late rebates still outstanding, as this is partly dependent on the extent to which all relevant information for 1997–98 has been received from employers.

  Advisory Groups
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 960W, if he will place in the Library a list of the membership of the (a) Business Advisory Group on Economic and Monetary Union, (b) Royal Mint Shareholder Panel, and (c) Standing Committee on Euro Preparations; and if he will make a statement. [36008]

  Ruth Kelly
  The members of the Royal Mint Stakeholder Panel are John Dean, Hugh Beevor and Stephen Dawson. It also includes Treasury officials with responsibility for oversight of public enterprises and the coinage. The organisations represented on both the Chancellor's Standing Committee on Euro Preparations and the Business Advisory Group on Euro Preparations were listed in the Fifth Report on Euro Preparations, published in November 2001. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Princess of Wales Memorial Committee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money from the proceeds of the £5 coin has been paid to projects recommended by the Princess of Wales Memorial Committee; how many organisations have received allocations; and how many will do so in 2002. [36113]

  Ruth Kelly
  The sale of commemorative and collector coins in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales raised
  591W
  £7,404,000 by 12 February 2002. This will be used to offset voted expenditure on projects put forward by the Diana Memorial Committee.

  I gave details of these projects in my answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 260W. As I said then, the total cost of the park projects to date is £6,000,000. Half of this has been spent, the balance associated with the building of the fountain in Hyde Park, will be used by summer 2003. The Diana Nursing Teams cost £2,000,000 in each of the last two financial years. They are forecast to cost the same this year and again in 2002–03.

  EDS Contract
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell of 29 January, what the value is of the full 10 year contract with EDS in 2002 prices(a) excluding and (b) including IT assets; and if he will make a statement. [35460]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The value of the contract in 2002 prices is £2.4 billion excluding capital and £2.8 million including capital. In the past, we have reported the value of the contract in 1994 prices so for completeness this compares with £2.0 billion excluding capital and £2.3 billion including capital. The difference is actual and forecast inflation.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36210]

  Ruth Kelly
  The arrangements for granting paid leave for union duties are the subject of formal agreements between Departments and the recognised trade unions within each Department. The agreements vary to reflect the needs of each Department. As the day-to-day management of each agreement is in the hands of managers throughout the UK detailed figures of the type sought are not readily available in every Department and the cost of collecting them would be disproportionate.

  Managers are aware of the need to guard against excessive or unnecessary absences and paid union activity is restricted to the minimum necessary to ensure effective industrial relations and minimise strife.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36142]
  592W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 321W.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to rule out removing the ceiling on employees' national insurance contributions. [36406]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As with all elements of taxation, the Chancellor reviews the levels and threshold for national insurance contributions annually and will continue to keep the upper earnings level and other earnings limits and thresholds under review.

  Tax (Students)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue last updated their advice and information to full-time students who have earnings or other income; and in what form this advice is available. [37036]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The current Inland Revenue leaflet "IR60—Income Tax and Students" was published in June 1997. The contents of this leaflet are currently being reviewed and a revised version is expected to be issued in April.

  1911 Census
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the 1911 Census returns remain confidential; and if he will make a statement. [36599]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Mullin dated 14 February 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking on what basis the 1911 Census returns remain confidential. (36599).
  The 1911 Census records are subject to the Public Records Act 1958 (Instrument No 12 dated 1966), and are closed to the public for a period of 100 years. The Lord Chancellor in conjunction with the Minister of Health, who at that time was responsible for the Census, prescribed the closure period. At the time of the 1911 Census, assurance was given that the contents of the Schedule would be treated as strictly confidential.
  Under the Public Records Act, there is provision for a record held by the Public Record Office to be inspected if special authority is given by the department responsible for the record. In 1993 it was announced in Parliament that the Registrar General would be willing to consider particular applications for information to be extracted from the 1911 returns if it would enable the applicant to establish a legal entitlement such as an inheritance. A concession announced in 1993 which does allow the release of information from the 1911 Census, is conditional upon the applicant requiring the information solely in order to establish a legal entitlement and would only be considered where the information could not be obtained from any other source.

  Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals were brought under the provisions referred to in(a) subsection (2)(e) (Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Social Security Act 1998 (c. 14) (social security decisions and appeals: Great Britain)) and (b) (2)(f) (Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (social security decisions and appeals: Northern Ireland)) of Clause 46 of the Tax Credits Bill in each year since 1997; and how many of these appeals were successful. [35183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of first tier appeals made against child benefit and guardian's allowance decisions and the number of those appeals that were found in favour of the appellant since 1997 are:

  Number of appeals

  Successful appeals

  Great Britain

  1997

  4,315

  155

  1998

  4,730

  215

  1999

  1,960

  185

  2000

  1,255

  75

  2001

  1,120

  70

  Northern Ireland

  1997

  117

  13

  1998

  93

  11

  1999

  141

  2

  2000

  75

  1

  2001

  78

  1

  Notes:

  All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  Figures after June 2001 are provisional.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Witnesses (Gender)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the President of the Council if he will collate statistics on the gender breakdown of witnesses to each select committee since 1997. [36367]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The choice of witnesses is a matter for individual Select Committees. The Minutes of Proceedings issued each Session for each Committee give details of witnesses, although the sex of a particular individual may not always be clear from their name and title. On these grounds, the cost of collating such figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council when he expects the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to report on the reform of the daily working practices of the House. [36713]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has just published its report on the Select Committee System.
  594W
  The Committee now plans to address some of the other issues contained in the Memorandum I presented to the Committee before Christmas. I hope the Committee will be able to report on these issues as soon as is practical.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Advocate-General what steps she is taking to encourage participation by her Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33555]

  The Advocate-General: The Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland provides legal advice and services to the Government and has very limited requirements for goods which are subject to fair trade schemes. However, the Department for International Development is providing £120,000 to the Fair Trade Foundation over three years from 2001 in support of the foundation's efforts to target new groups through its annual Fair Trade Fortnight. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will be attending the launch of this year's campaign on 4 March.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was to the New Millennium Experience Company of commissioning Anthony Gormley's Quantum Cloud; and who currently owns the sculpture. [27895]

  Tessa Jowell
  The cost to NMEC of commissioning and installation was £1.2 million. The sculpture is owned by Anthony Gormley.

  Libraries
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on how the quality of libraries is determined, and on the results of evaluations undertaken in each local authority in the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [35246]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have encouraged better planning and accountability in public library services through the introduction of annual library plans in 1998. This process was strengthened still further in April 2001 with the introduction of public library standards. From 2001, ALPs have been used as the main vehicle for assessing the quality of library services, as library authorities are required to use them to report on their current position against the standards and their plans for meeting them in the future. In addition, all local authority services, including libraries, are subject to best value, and best value reviews provide a further valuable insight into the provision and plans made by authorities for continuous improvement in their library provision. Before the introduction of the annual library plans, public library standards and best value, there was no on-going check of library authority plans and performance.
  595W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Government have spent on library book funds per annum per local authority in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [35195]

  Dr. Howells
  Funding for public libraries generally is provided through the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) block and through council tax. In the latest Local Government Financial Settlement (for 2002–03) the funds for the EPCS block were increased by 4.2 per cent., a real terms increase of 1.7 per cent.

  It is for library authorities to decide how much of their funding to allocate to their libraries, and then to the purchase of books and other materials, in line with their statutory duty to provide library services that are comprehensive and efficient.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many libraries have closed in each of the past three years in England and Wales; [35802]

  (2) how many libraries there are in England and Wales. [35803]

  Dr. Howells
  A register of all library openings and closures in England is not held centrally. However, DCMS was glad to note the opening of the new Epsom Library at the Ebbishall Centre in May 2001 with more floor space and longer opening hours.

  The total number of libraries in England for the last three years has been:

  Number

  1997–98

  3,053

  1998–99

  3,037

  1999–2000

  3,031

  The figures reflect branch and central libraries only. They do not include mobile libraries or special services provided by English library authorities to senior citizens' homes and others in sheltered housing schemes. In 1999–2000 the figures for these two types of provision were, respectively, 440 mobiles and 14,617 outlets in institutions.

  Library provision in Wales is properly a matter for the Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sources of the £2 billion investment in sport that she announced on 3 February, broken down by(a) the financial year in which it is to be paid, (b) the financial year in which it is to be accounted for, (c) the method of distribution of the funds and (d) whether it had been announced before. [34767]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The current sources of funding for sport are as follows:

  New Opportunities Fund PE and Sport Programme
  £581 million in England. All funding will be committed by 2005. Announced by Prime Minister in September 2000. Local education authorities will act as lead organisations in submitting applications to the New Opportunities Fund.
  596W
  New Opportunities Fund—Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces Scheme
  £30 million for England to be administered by Sport England. Planned that all funding will be committed by 2005. Scheme commenced in April 2001.

  New Opportunities Fund—Better Play Grant Programme
  £9 million delivered by Barnardo's and children's Play Council. Planned that all funding will be committed by 2003.

  New Opportunities Fund—Activities for young people programme
  £38.75 million to be committed by 2003. Distributed by NOF to lead organisations in 47 Connexions areas. Launched in August 2001.

  New Opportunities Fund—Out of School Hours Sport Activities
  £25.5 million to be committed by 2004. Distributed through partnership between NOF and Sports Councils.

  Space for Sport and Arts
  £130 million to be distributed by 2003–04. Grants paid to local education authorities by Sport England which is administering the scheme. Scheme announced in March 2001.

  Sport England—grant in aid
  £43.2 million in 2001–02, £53.3 million in 2002–03 and £78.3 million in 2003–04. Announced July 2000.

  Sport England—Lottery sports Fund
  £224,000 million in 2001–02, £202,000 million in 2002–03 and £188,000 million in 2003–04.

  UK Sport—grant in aid
  £17.6 million in 2001–02, £19.6 million in 2002–03 and £19.6 million in 2003–04. Announced in July 2000.

  UK Sport Lottery Sports Fund
  £22.1 million in 2001–02, £22.7 million in 2002–03 and £23.7 million in 2003–04.

  Commonwealth games
  £10.5 million for the opening ceremony to be paid to Manchester 2002 Ltd. in 2001–02 and 2002–03. Announced in July 2000.
  £30 million towards the games budget to be paid to Manchester city council through Sport England. Announced in July 2001.

  Football Licensing Authority
  £925,000 a year for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. Announced July 2000.

  Specialist Sports Colleges
  £14.2 million in 2001–02, £24.3 million in 2002–03 and £34.7 million in 2003–04. Funds distributed by DFES to individual sports colleges. Announced July 2000.

  Volunteering in Sport Project
  £3 million in 2002–03 and £4 million in 2003–04. To be distributed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to Youth Sport Trust, British Sports Trust and Sport England, who will be implementing the project. Announced March 2001.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed in her Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35356]

  Dr. Howells
  There are currently no staff employed on a job share contract in the Department.

  All vacancies advertised state that
  "applications are welcome from staff wishing to job-share or work part-time, and managers will seek to accommodate flexible working patterns".
  597W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35940]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department's independent staff counselling service report that over the past year they have dealt in confidence with three work-related stress cases. Details for the previous two years are not available. No compensation has been paid out over the past three years. While levels of sick absence are closely monitored, we do not have records to identify which absences through stress are work-related; therefore the cost similarly cannot be identified. However, my Department is committed to meeting the targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally due to work related injuries and illness in line with the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative. To this end my Department introduced a new stress management policy last year providing staff and managers with guidance on identifying and managing stress more effectively, and this month we are launching a dedicated Health and Well-Being intranet site for all staff. A full review of work-life balance polices has also been conducted recently. The costs involved in these initiatives are not available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the effect of the working time directive on her Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps she is taking to reduce this number; and if she will make a statement. [35899]

  Dr. Howells
  The results of working hours surveys conducted in my Department, including the Royal Parks Agency, indicate that there are occasions where a small number of senior staff are working voluntarily in excess of 48 hours per week. However, no staff are doing so on a regular basis save for a group of horticultural staff in the royal parks who are on all hours worked contracts and have signed an "opt out" agreement. The actual hours worked by staff in different parts of the Department are monitored regularly against conditioned working hours to identify any developing trends and/or potential problem areas. Where these arise, divisional business plans and work demands may be adjusted, and individual staff offered time management training. My Department has also conducted a review of personnel policies with the aim of achieving a better work-life balance for all staff. This review took account of the results of the working hours surveys and of responses to work-life balance questions posed in last year's annual staff attitude survey.

  Sport England
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for funding via Sport England in(a) rural areas and (b) urban areas have been (i) received and (ii) approved in each year since Sport England was set up. [35822]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows.
  598W

  Year

  Applications received

  Rural Applications approved

  Applications received

  Urban Applications approved

  1994–95

  33

  17

  51

  17

  1995–96

  410

  289

  883

  528

  1996–97

  408

  254

  852

  480

  1997–98

  504

  181

  1043

  367

  1998–99

  418

  141

  828

  293

  1999–2000

  253

  114

  564

  244

  2000–01

  135

  82

  467

  181

  2001–02

  156

  60

  581

  160

  Total

  2,317

  1,138

  5,269

  2,270

  1 Applications in respect of rural local authorities as defined by the Countryside Agency for the purposes of its State of the Countryside Report.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the minimum usage levels are for sports schemes that will qualify for lottery funding via Sport England; [35824]

  (2) what steps she is taking to ensure that rural areas are not deprived of lottery funding from Sport England because of lower usage levels than in urban areas. [35821]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England does not apply any minimum usage levels in considering whether to award lottery funding to sports projects. Each application is judged on the merits of the particular case, taking into account, among other things, value for money and the need for the facility in question whether it is in a rural or urban area.

  National Youth Music Theatre
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to the Department of Education and Skills over funding for the National Youth Music Theatre. [35823]

  Dr. Howells
  This Department has been in close contact with the Department for Education and Skills over the issue of funding for all youth music organisations, including the National Youth Music Theatre. National Youth Music Theatre has already received £35,000 from an initial central fund for the national youth music organisations. Together with the Department for Education and Skills, the Arts Council of England and the National Foundation for Youth Music we are looking at how best to secure the future of these organisations.

  Lottery Awards
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average lottery award has been in the(a) Cleethorpes and (b) Grimsby constituencies; and what the UK average is. [35316]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the average lottery award made to date in the Cleethorpes and Grimsby constituencies are £28,092 and £44,163 respectively. The median average lottery award for UK constituencies is £54,861, and the average award to UK lottery projects, found by dividing the total amount awarded by the total number of projects, is £98,509.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 952W, on fair trade goods, if she will review and increase the amount of fairly traded goods purchased by her Department during Fair Trade Fortnight. [35918]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is a small policy Department with a purchasing profile that would make little impact on suppliers from any source over a very limited period. There is a commitment to fairly traded goods which will be pursued throughout the year and, where considerations of propriety and value for money allow, those goods will be given preference.

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in her Department to(a) herself and (b) her fellow Ministers; how frequently and at what expense private courier firms are employed for such a task; and which courier firms have been used for such duties. [36270]

  Mr. Caborn
  Wherever possible, ministerial boxes are conveyed between Ministers' homes and their private offices by means of the secure services provided by the Government Car and Despatch Agency. Where this would be uneconomic, ministerial boxes are sent using the secure service provided by Consignia.

  Sport Funding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the Government's statement on spending £2 billion on sport. [36086]

  Mr. Caborn
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 7 February for a list of the sources of this funding. There have been no other representations.

  Ministerial Visit (Belfast)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to visit Belfast; and if her Department will support the celebrations of British maritime history on the anniversary of the Titanic. [36956]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Belfast in October 2001 but she currently has no plans for a future visit. While we recognise the illustrious contribution that our maritime history has made to the United Kingdom, the holding of such celebrations in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  National Stadium
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the FA and Wembley National Stadium about the financing of the National Stadium project; and if she will make a statement. [37487]
  600W
  Tessa Jowell
  I set out the Government's position on the Football Association's National Stadium project to the House on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 291. My officials are working closely with the Football Association, Wembley National Stadium Ltd., Sport England and other interested parties to monitor progress in addressing the issues I set out to the House. Sir Rodney Walker, Chairman of WNSL has already written to me setting out how WNSL are addressing these issues. In that letter Sir Rodney requested a letter for his bankers setting out the Government's commitment to the project and the conditions which attach to that commitment. This I was happy to provide. I am arranging for copies of this exchange of correspondence to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on proposals to create a tunnel at Stonehenge. [35560]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The proposals to build a 2 km cut and cover tunnel to take the A303 past Stonehenge were announced in July 1998 in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" as an "exceptional environmental scheme". They are the central component of a wider set of proposals. set out in the Stonehenge master plan to restore the world heritage site and the scheduled ancient monument to its pre-historic setting.

  The Highways Agency is currently seeking feasibility proposals and costs from the construction industry which include two options for the tunnel: a 2 km cut and cover tunnel and a 2 km shallow bored tunnel. The proposals will be scrutinised carefully to ensure that they meet the agreed requirements for this archaeologically important site, offer value for money and deliver the best balance of benefits.

  The aim is to begin the necessary statutory procedures later this year. Subject to the outcome, construction could start in 2005.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance she is planning to give to local authorities to make memorials in cemeteries safe. [31270]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Local Government Finance Settlement 2002–03 provides funds for local authorities' responsibilities in this area. Provision for funding on environmental, protective and cultural services has increased, on a like for like basis, by £360 million or 4.2 per cent. Local authorities are, of course, responsible for decisions on their own spending priorities, bearing in mind their statutory responsibilities and the wishes of their electorate.

  We are looking, with local government, at pressures on local authorities in the context of Spending Review 2002, and are aware that the Local Government Association (LGA) have highlighted the additional cost of making

  601W
  memorials in cemeteries safe. We will be looking closely at the case made by the LGA, having regard to the Government's position on funding the renovation of unsafe memorials, as set out in our response to the Environment Select Committee report on cemeteries (Reference CM Paper 5281).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Golden Jubilee Celebrations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what events(a) she is and (b) other Ministers in her Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events her Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33259]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the average cost of processing each information request under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33443]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the period of time elapsed is for the oldest outstanding request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998, since receipt of the(a) original request and (b) administration fee. [33444]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills has five outstanding requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  For the oldest request, 36 days have elapsed since the original request for information was received.

  The Department does not charge a fee for requests for information under the Act.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the longest period of time elapsed is between receiving(a) the administration fee and providing the information requested and (b) a request for information and providing the information requested, under the Data Protection Act 1998. [33453]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The longest period of time that has elapsed between a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the provision of that information is 60 days.

  The Department for Education and Skills does not charge a fee for requests for information under the Act.

  The data controller is also not obliged to comply with the request until he has been supplied with such information as he may reasonably require to confirm the requester's identity and to locate the information that the requester requires. The 40-day period begins when this information is received.
  602W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what administration fees are charged by the Department for information requests made under the Data Protection Act 1998; [33460]

  (2) what percentage of responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed (a) within 40 days of receipt of the £10 fee, (b) between 40 and 60 days of and (c) over 60 days after receiving the administration fee; [33467]

  (3) how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 the Department has completed (a) within 40 days of receipt of, (b) between 40 and 60 days of receiving and (c) over 60 days after receiving the £10 administration fee. [33562]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills does not charge a fee for requests for information under the Act.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the policy of the Department is for ensuring responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 are completed within 40 days; and what their procedure is to achieve this. [33472]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 are logged by the departmental Data Protection Officer (DPO).

  When the DPO has either to trawl the Department or approach individual divisions for information, he ensures that a deadline is set for response that gives him sufficient time to coordinate the response within the requirements of the Act, and ensures that any non-response is followed up promptly.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Department's procedure is for responding to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998; if she will place a copy in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [33481]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 are logged by the departmental Data Protection Officer (DPO).who also co-ordinates the completion of the response within the requirements of the Act.

  The DPO may write to the requester seeking such evidence as he may reasonably require to confirm the requester's identity and to locate the information that the requester requires. Depending on the response, he will initiate a search either with the relevant division (s) or Department-wide. The DPO is responsible for sifting the information provided and co-ordinating the final reply within the required 40-day deadline.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many responses to requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 have been completed(a) within 40 days, (b) between 40 and 60 days and (c) over 60 days after receiving the original letter; and how many are still outstanding. [33569]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The data controller is not obliged to comply with the request until he has been supplied with such information as he may reasonably require to confirm the requester's identity and to locate the information that the requester requires. The 40-day period begins when this information is received.
  603W
  With reference to that date, the numbers completed are as follows: (a)(b)(c)

  There are five requests outstanding.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her latest estimate is of the losses sustained by learning providers following the closure of the ILA scheme in November 2001; whether she intends to accept claims for compensation for such losses; and if she will make a statement. [35208]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 February 2002] The Department is in no position to estimate the losses sustained by learning providers following the closure of the individual learning account programme on 23 November 2001. The Department has no plans to compensate learning providers in relation to the closure.

  Our intention is that all bookings of validated eligible learning made with the ILA centre by 23 November will be honoured. The extent to which organisations made business decisions around their participation in ILAs is something each organisation determined for itself.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her latest estimate is of the amount of fraudulent claims made under the individual learning accounts scheme; and if she will make a statement. [35209]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 February 2002] The Department's Special Investigations Unit is investigating 96 registered learning providers. Of these, police are investigating 13 and the Department's Special Investigation Unit is discussing a further 53 with the police. 44 arrests have been made in relation to allegations of fraud with the operation of the individual learning account programme, 13 have been charged one of whom has been convicted.

  As at 31 December, the Department had received some 5,800 complaints from individuals claiming that money had been drawn from their individual learning account without their knowledge or consent. Complaints received will be followed up with providers, and where we have evidence of fraud we will make referrals to the police. It is not possible at this stage to determine costs in relation to the abuse of the individual learning account programme. Costs will become clearer as learning provider and police investigations progress.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the reason was for the closure of the individual learning account scheme; and if she will make a statement. [33986]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 591W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1, ref 31413, on ILAs, if she will place in the Library the terms of the consultation being conducted, the means by which providers, learners and other stakeholders have been informed and the closing date for receipt of responses. [35826]
  604W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 12 February 2002] The consultation exercise is aimed at seeking views on the strengths and weaknesses of the ILA scheme and ideas on what a replacement scheme should include. We have written to all registered ILA providers and to 32 national stakeholders to inform them of the exercise. There will be a telephone survey of a sample of 1,000 ILA holders. There is also a consultation website (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ilaviews), through which learners, providers and others can give their views and enter into debate. The website also provides information about the various strands of the consultation exercise. It is planned that surveys and interviews will be completed by the end of February. There will then be a series of workshops, which will be held in March.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the total(a) number and (b) cost of individual learning accounts issued to persons with special educational needs. [35578]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 13 February 2002] Data collected from individual learning account holders during the application process did not require them to supply information about special educational needs.

  Pay Scales
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to address the difference in pay between teachers in secondary schools and lecturers in further education colleges. [36011]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 February 2002]: We are aware of the differences between salaries in general further education colleges, sixth form colleges and schools and this issue is being considered as part of the current spending review.

  As independent organisations, it is for each college to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to them. This year alone, an additional £527 million is available for FE, a 12 per cent. real terms increase on last year. Funding will increase again next year by a further three per cent. This compares with the period between 1993–94 and 1996–97 when FE funding per FTE student fell by 12 per cent. in real terms. As part of the planned increases, we are investing more than £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative between 2001 and 2004 to allow colleges, including sixth form colleges, to reward high quality teaching. This is separate to any general pay rise a teacher may receive.

  16+ Learning
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirement there is for Learning and Skills Councils to draw up a marketing plan to promote 16+ learning. [36013]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 February 2002] The Learning and Skills Council has a statutory duty to encourage individuals to take part in post-16 education and training, and to encourage employers to participate in and contribute to its provision. Local Learning and Skills Councils must prepare a plan for each financial year, but there is no specific requirement for a marketing plan.
  605W
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish(a) local and (b) national marketing plans for Learning and Skills Councils to promote 16+ learning. [36025]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 February 2002] This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Lady and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 718W, on higher education, which of the courses listed are carried out at universities and funded by HEFCE. [36014]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 February 2002] The Higher Education Funding Council for England funds all the courses cited in my reply of 4 February carried out at universities and colleges of higher education, provided they meet the HEFCE criteria for funding. The funding criteria can be found in HEFCE publication 01/52—Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey, and include, for example, that the course is open to any suitably qualified candidate and there is no duplication of HEFCE funding from any other public source.

  Postgraduate Certificate of Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students entered PGCE courses in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and(d) 2000–01; and how many of them dropped out before completion of the course. [36007]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested; there is no single central data collection for both the numbers entering PGCE courses and numbers completing them.

  The numbers of new entrants to courses of initial teacher training at institutions in England are collected through the Teacher Training Agency's Annual Survey of Training Providers. The table shows the number of new entrants to PGCE courses in the years in question:

  Table 1: Number of new entrants to PGCE courses, 1997–98 to2000–01

  Number

  2000–01

  19,616

  1999–2000

  17,461

  1998–99

  17,415

  1997–98

  18,100

  Note:

  The figures cover providers in England only

  Sources:

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA)

  Annual Survey of ITT Providers 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

  Most PGCE trainees enter one-year courses.

  The Initial Teacher Training Performance Profiles, published annually by the Teacher Training Agency, show the numbers of final-year trainees at institutions in England at 1 December who fail to gain Qualified Teacher
  606W
  Status (QTS) by the end of their final year. The table shows this information for the three latest years for which data are available:

  Table 2: Number of final year PGCE trainees who failed to gain QTS, 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Number of final year trainees

  Number failed to gain QTS at end of final year

  1999–2000

  17,167

  2,320

  1998–99

  17,431

  2,267

  1997–98

  17,998

  2,634

  Notes:

  1. The figures cover providers in England only.

  2. Number of trainees who failed to gain QTS includes those who failed the course, those who left before the end, and those yet to complete. Some of the latter group may have been awarded QTS at a later date.

  Sources:

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA)

  ITT Performance Profiles 1999, 2000, 2001

  Line Management
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average number of staff for which(a) secondary school teachers and (b) further education lecturers have line management responsibility. [36027]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 February 2002]This information is not collected centrally.

  Violence in Schools
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to address violence against teachers and other school staff members during school hours. [35623]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 716W, which explained the initiatives the Department for Education and Skills has undertaken, and is undertaking, to reduce the incidence of abuse by parents and others against school staff. This is in addition to the legal remedies that exist for dealing with harassment and violence. The Department has provided £178 million in 2001–02 to schools and local education authorities to help support measures to tackle poor pupil behaviour. This funding backs up the guidance in Circular 10/99 "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support".

  The Department has also recently announced £10 million for 2002–03 from the capital modernisation fund for local education authorities to spend on local school security improvements to help make premises more secure from intruders.

  National Youth Music Theatre
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent representations she has received on the funding of the National Youth Music Theatre; [35729]
  607W
  (2) when she will make a decision on the funding for the National Youth Music Theatre; [35730]

  (3) what commitment she has made to match the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's offer of £500,000 to the National Youth Music Theatre. [35731]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A number of representations have been made about funding for national youth music organisations, including the National Youth Music Theatre, and meetings have been held with the National Foundation for Youth Music, which represents their interests.

  This Department has already made available grants totalling £12 million over the last three years (1999–2000 to 2001–2002) for National Voluntary Youth Organisations; of which the National Youth Music Theatre received £112,000. We have also provided £50,000 towards the start-up costs of a central fund for national youth music organisations.

  Key Stage 1: Percentage of pupils at Level 2 or above (test)

  Size of cohort

  0–10

  10–20

  20–40

  40–80

  80–100

  100 and over

  All schools

  Reading task/test1

  65

  84

  84

  83

  84

  85

  83

  Writing task

  65M

  84

  85

  85

  86

  86

  84

  Mathematics

  69

  89

  90

  90

  91

  91

  90

  1 These percentages are based on achievements at Level 2C/B/A in the reading task and Level 3 and 4 in the reading test.

  Key Stage 2: Percentage of pupils at Level 4 or above (test)

  Size of cohort

  0–10

  10–20

  20–40

  40–80

  80–100

  100 and over

  All schools

  English

  59

  73

  77

  74

  75

  76

  75

  Mathematics

  56

  71

  74

  71

  71

  71

  72

  Science

  66

  81

  86

  85

  85

  86

  85

  HE2 Forms
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many HE2 forms were submitted in 2001; and how many applicants completed details of financial obligations as described in question39. [36262]

  Margaret Hodge
  To date in the 2001–02 academic year 718,000 students in England and wales have submitted HE2 forms to their local education authorities. All applicants are required to complete details of financial obligations as described in question 39.

  Fast-track Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools employ fast-track teachers. [36608]

  Mr. Timms
  The first teachers on the Fast-Track Programme will take up posts in September 2002. 110 successful candidates took up places in Fast-Track Initial Teacher Training in September 2001; teachers on the Fast-Track Programme are required to gain Qualified Teacher Status before taking up approved Fast-Track posts in schools.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to change the
  608W
  I am considering what role these organisations might play in supporting young musicians and a decision on funding is expected to be made shortly. The Department is working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Arts Council for England and other external partners in this area

  Primary Education Standards
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the relationship between the number of pupils attending a primary school and educational standards; and if she will make a statement. [36100]

  Mr. Timms
  The following tables set out the distribution of achievement at Key Stages 1 and 2 by the size of a school's pupil cohort. For schools with a cohort of 10 or more pupils, school size appears to have little significant effect on the proportion of children achieving the expected standard for their age.

  departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limits for 2001–02. [37369]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Education and Skills' DEL (including the Office for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (Ofsted) which has a separate Estimate) will be increased by £83,651,000 from £20,220,827,000 to £20,304,478,000 and the administration costs limits will be changed as follows.

  £000

  Original

  Change

  Revised

  DfES (RfR1)

  219,045

  685

  219,73

  Sure Start (RfR3)

  3,449

  441

  3,890

  Children and Young People's Unit (RfR4)

  2,666

  -175

  2,491

  Ofsted

  27,095

  0

  27,095

  Within the DEL change, the impact on the resources element and the capital element are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Of which:

  Change

  New DEL

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Resources

  RfR 1

  59,953

  17,015,128

  6,675,262

  10,339,866

  RfR 3

  441

  125,833

  125,833

  0

  RfR 4

  -1,543

  98,073

  98,073

  0

  Total change

  58,851

  —

  —

  —

  Ofsted

  694

  152,019

  152,019

  0

  609W

  £000

  Of which:

  Change

  New DEL

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Capital

  RfR1

  1,938

  2,820,374

  1,851,123

  969,251

  RfR 3

  21,462

  80,470

  80,470

  0

  RfR 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total change

  23,400

  —

  —

  —

  Ofsted

  706

  12,581

  12,581

  0

  The increase in the voted resource element of the DEL for RfR1, (£129,703,000) arises from the take up of £108,000,000 of End-Year Flexibility provision; the increase in receipts of £20,000,000 resulting from the winding up of the Training and Enterprise Councils; the increase of £30,000,000 in receipts surrendered to the Consolidated Fund, the transfer of £8,511,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions for Basic Skills, disability issues undertaken by the Disability Rights Commission and hardship payments to young people in lieu of bridging allowances; the transfer of £2,175,000 from the Department for Trade and Industry; the transfer from Student Tuition Fees of £1,450,000 to the Teacher Training Agency Grant in Aid; the transfer of £1,400,000 to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England to fund increased contract prices and the monitoring of schools facing challenge; the transfer of £1,105,000 from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for a project to address the training and skills in the Road Haulage Industry, Neighbourhood Surveys and a pilot project on Resident's Consultancy; the transfer to the Home Office of £920,000 for the prison education service and a contribution to the Black Training and Enterprise Group; the transfer of £500,000 to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs towards the Milk and Milk Products (Pupils in Educational Establishments) (Scotland) Regulations 2001; the net transfer of £137,000 to the Department of Health for the Care Standards Tribunal, Personal Social and Health Education and the Protection of Children Act Tribunal; the net transfer of £84,000 to the Scottish Executive for the Scottish Council of National Training Organisations and European education programmes; the transfer of £45,000 from the Office for National Statistics for Neighbourhood Statistics; the transfer of £8,037,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions, £568,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry and £15,000 to the Cabinet Office as part of the machinery of government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 8 June 2001; and the virement of £90,000,000 from non-voted DEL to reflect the changes in funding certain departmental programmes.

  The increase of £441,000 in the voted resource element of the DEL for RfR3 arises from the take up of End-Year Flexibility.

  The reduction in the voted resource element of DEL for RfR4 arises from the transfer of £1,543,000 to the Home Office for the evaluation of programmes.

  The increase of £694,000 in the voted resource element of DEL for Ofsted arises from the transfer from DfES (RfR1) for increased contract prices and the monitoring of schools facing challenge.
  610W
  The decrease in the voted capital element of the DEL for RfR1, (£4,875,000) arises from receipts of £6,063,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry, the virement of £1,200,000 from non-voted capital to fund the loss on the sale of Letchworth Skill Centre, the transfer of £45,000 from the Office for National Statistics for Neighbourhood Statistics and the transfer of £57,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry as part of the machinery of government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 8 June 2001.

  The increase of £21,462,000 in the voted capital element of the DEL for RfR3 arises from the take up of End-Year Flexibility.

  The increase of £706,000 in the voted capital element of the DEL for Ofsted arises from the transfer from DfES (RfR1) for increased contract prices and the monitoring of schools facing challenge.

  The decrease in the non-voted resource element of the DEL for RfR1, (£69,750,000) arises from an increase of £20,000,000 to the grant in aid to the Learning and Skills Council, a transfer of £1,450,000 from Student Tuition fees to the Teacher Training Agency to fund flexible Initial Teacher Training Fees and a virement of £91,200,000 to voted DEL to reflect the changes in funding certain departmental programmes and the loss on the sale of Letchworth Skill Centre.

  The increase in the non-voted capital element of the DEL for RfR1, (£6,813,000) arises from the transfer from the Department of Health for the National Institute of Psychiatry (£750,000) and the increase of £6,063,000 in the provision for the Higher Education Funding Council for England funded by the receipts from the Department of Trade and Industry.

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Donations
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) he and (b) officials in his office were first informed of the donation registered by the Electoral Commission under the name of Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal on 20 June 2001. [36066]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 13 February 2002,Official Report, columns 198–99.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the most recent delayed discharge figures referred to in his answer given to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 283; and if he will make a statement. [34016]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health to the hon. Member on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 688W.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34290]

  The Prime Minister
  Legal costs incurred by my office in each of the last four years are as follows:

  £

  2 May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  0.00

  1998–99

  0.00

  1999–2000

  0.00

  2000–01

  40.00

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost to his Office was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34165]

  The Prime Minister
  No expenditure has been made by my office.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister what the role of the performance and innovation unit is; and if he will make a statement on its organisation. [36934]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 87W.

  Security and Intelligence Agencies
  John Mann
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to change the departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limits for 2001–02 for the security and intelligence agencies. [37367]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for the Security and Intelligence Agencies will be increased by £7,521,000 from £891,833,000 to £899,354,000 and the administration cost limit will be increased by £5,505,000 from £441,954,000 t £447,459,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  £

  Resources

  Change

  3,945,000

  New DEL

  783,229,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  783,229,000

  Non-voted

  —

  Capital

  Change

  3,576,000

  New DEL

  116,903,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  116,903,000

  Non-voted

  —

  612W
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  1.£49,449,000 for further counter-terrorism work drawn from the Reserve;

  2. a PES transfer of £106,000 from the Treasury Solicitor's Department;

  3. a transfer of £700,000 from Capital;

  4. the take up of End of Year Flexibility (EYF) carried forward from 2001–02 of £1,800,000;

  5. a reduction of £48,000,000 due to a revised forecast;

  6. a decrease of £105,000 to reflect the latest property/land values

  7. a decrease of £5,000 to cover Loss on Sale.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from £4,276,000 for further counter-terrorism work drawn from the Reserve and £700,000 transferred to Resource DEL.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers, the take up of DEL EYF and extra funding from the Reserve.

  British Companies
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the Government's definition of a British company is; [36069]

  (2) on what basis he decided that LNM Holdings was a British company; [36064]

  (3) on what criteria he judged the LNM group to be British; [36737]

  (4) what his policy is on congratulating foreign Governments on granting contracts to companies with British connections; [36071]

  (5) on how many occasions in the past year he has written to his European counterparts regarding the awarding of contracts to companies with British interests; [36070]

  (6) what criteria he uses to decide whether an attempted overseas acquisition by an individual or company seeking assistance from him would be in the national interest; and what process of assessment takes place against these criteria; [36736]

  (7) if he will list the (a) individuals and (b) companies since 1997 which have received assistance from himself and his Office in attempts to acquire assets overseas. [36738]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will publish the text of his letter to the Prime Minister of Romania about the sale of that country's steel company, Sidex; and when the text was made available to LNM Holdings; [37011]

  (2) if he will list the letters he has written in the last 12 months to foreign Governments following British companies winning business abroad, stating in each case (a) the Government concerned, (b) the name of the British company, (c) the place of registration of the company, (d) the nature of the contract, (e) the date the contract in question was signed and (f) the date the letter was sent; [37014]

  (3)(a) by whom and (b) when he was informed that a contract had been awarded by the Government of Romania to privatise Sidex. [37012]
  613W
  The Prime Minister
  There is no formal legal definition of a British company.

  Each case is considered on its merits in terms of the overall potential benefit to UK business and to the UK economy. A number of factors will be relevant in considering this including whether the company is incorporated or registered in Britain, whether the company has a UK address, whether a company is UK controlled or owned, whether it employs people in the UK, whether it has a UK manufactured product or service, and whether there are wider benefits for the UK, in terms of increased access to overseas markets, increased employment or increased competitiveness.

  The LNM Group is a global organisation with a headquarters in London, which includes UK registered companies and which employs people in the UK. London and the UK benefit from the location of groups such as LNM here which reflect its position as a global centre for business.

  As I have made clear I signed the letter on the advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the ambassador in Bucharest. The decision to award the contract had already been made when I signed the letter, as the text of the letter made clear. This letter is already in the public domain. With the agreement of the Romanian Government, this letter was read out at the signing ceremony in Bucharest on 25 July 2001.

  There was nothing extraordinary about my letter to the Romanian Government. I have written regularly to other leaders concerning contracts in which there is a British commercial interest. I have also lobbied fellow leaders in person and over the telephone on behalf of British business. Ministers in successive Governments have fought for British interests abroad and I regard this as an important part of my job.

  It is not normal practice to release letters from the Prime Minister to another Head of Government under exemption 1(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Exemption 13 of the Code also applies with regard to commercial confidentiality.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent representations the Government have made to the European Union regarding the impact of enlargement of the European Union on the British steel industry; [36065]

  (2) what representations the Government have made to the Romanian Government regarding the steel industry since January 2001; [36072]

  (3) what recent representations the Government have made to the European Union regarding acceptability of Romania for accession to the European Union; [36068]

  (4) on what criteria he suggested to the Romanian Prime Minister on 23 July 2001 that the acquisition of the sidex steel plant by the LNM group would assist Romania's membership to the European Union; [36735]

  (5) what communication the Government have had with Governments of other EU member states regarding the privatisation of the Romanian state-owned steel industry. [36740]
  614W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when(a) he and (b) his staff have met representatives of the Government of Romania to discuss that country's accession to the European Union; [37016]

  (2) what effect he estimates there will be on the UK from the sale of Sidex to LNM Holdings; [37015]

  (3) what assessment he has made of how the sale of Sidex to a British company will assist Romania's admission to the European Union. [37013]

  The Prime Minister
  UK support for Romanian EU accession, once Romania fulfils the conditions for membership, has long been on the record. It is our firm view that enlargement of the EU will be of economic and political benefit to existing members and candidate countries.

  Together with our European partners, we have encouraged the Romanian Government to complete the privatisation of the Romanian steel industry as part of the process of creating a fully-functioning market economy, one of the fundamental criteria for Romania's EU accession.

  We have consistently supported the interests of British business in the EU enlargement process, including those of the British steel industry, through the relevant EU fora.

  The sale of Sidex strengthens UK/Romania relations. It sends a strong positive signal to investors and businessman in Britain about market liberalisation and investment opportunities in Romania. The UK has strong interest in steps that help towards the reconstruction of the Romanian economy and towards its membership of the European Union. Privatisation of its steel industry through the sale of Sidex is an important element in its economic reform which will help to establish a level playing field between EU and Romanian steel producers and should lead to a reduction in levels of state subsidies which disadvantage UK steel producers. the privatisation did not threaten British jobs.

  I met the previous Romanian President, Emil Constantinescu, in Strasbourg in October 1997, during my visit to Bucharest in May 1999 and in London in February 2000. During my visit to Bucharest in May 1999 I also met the then Prime Minister Radu Vasile, and I met the current Prime Minister Adrian Nastase during his official visit in November 2001. On each occasion I emphasised my support for Romanian EU accession.

  Visits
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost was to Her Majesty's Treasury of the Romanian Prime Minister's visit to the UK in November 2001. [36073]

  The Prime Minister
  The Romanian Prime Minister visited London under our Guest of Government visit scheme. As is normal on such occasions, the Government met the costs of accommodation, some official entertainment and some travel within the UK for the official party.

  The cost to the Government of the visit was £26,813.37.
  615W

  PIU Energy Review
  John Mann
  To ask the Prime Minister when the performance and innovation unit's energy review will be published; and if he will make a statement. [37366]

  The Prime Minister
  The performance and innovation unit's energy review is published today. Copies of the report will be available in the Libraries of the House.

  The energy review considers the long-term issues in energy policy—ensuring that GB will have secure, competitive and affordable energy, while at the same time addressing the likely requirements of a low carbon economy.

  The report examines the main trends in energy markets and reviews the key choices facing policy makers including when decisions need to be taken and how to keep options open, so policy remains relevant to changing circumstances.

  While this report is not a statement of Government policy, it raises a broad range of issues that are important to the future evolution of energy policy. The Government intend to set in process a period of public consultation, leading to an energy White Paper in the autumn

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Decisions by Statute
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many decisions by statute she has made since taking office. [32593]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In common with all Government Ministers, the Lord Chancellor and his ministerial colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department make a large number of decisions under statutory authority in the normal course of their duties. To identify every such decision would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32029]

  Mr. Wills
  All Government Departments and their agencies are required to pay all undisputed bills within 30 days of receipt of the goods or services or receipt of a valid invoice, whichever is the later (or other agreed payment period). Since 1993 all Government Departments and agencies have been required to monitor their payment performance and the figures are published annually in the form of a written PQ. Figures for 2000–01 were published on 19 July 2001.

  During the financial year 2000–01 the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) incorporating the Court Service (CS), Northern Ireland Court Service (NICS), Land Registry (LR), Public Guardianship Office (PGO) and Public Record Office (PRO) paid a total of 256,668 invoices. Of this total 15,717 (6.12 per cent.) were paid beyond agreed credit terms. These figures are broken down as follows.
  616W

  Number

  Percentage

  LCD

  Invoices paid

  43,194

  —

  Paid late

  1,043

  2.4

  CS

  Invoices paid

  144,034

  Paid late

  8,904

  6.2

  NICS

  Invoices paid

  16,844

  —

  Paid late

  838

  4.97

  LR

  Invoices paid

  31,240

  Paid late

  156

  0.5

  PGO

  Invoices paid

  12,358

  —

  Paid late

  4,704

  38.06

  PRO

  Invoices paid

  8,998

  —

  Paid late

  72

  0.8

  No central records are kept detailing the reason for late payment of each individual invoice. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  This was the first year that LCD and CS have been in a position to report against all invoices paid rather than the practice in previous years of reporting against a sample of 1,200. A number of steps have been taken subsequently to improve payment performance. Following a successful pilot of the Government Procurement Card plans are in place to extend its use throughout the CS during 2002 and thereafter to other areas of LCD and its agencies. This will reduce the volume of individual payments and streamline the authorisation and payment process. The purchase order system is being used far more extensively and in new areas of the Department and this should also help to improve performance. There are signs that these changes have already had some impact as monitoring of this year's payments show that performance for LCD and CS has increased to over 96 per cent.

  During 2000–01 the PGO experienced major changes which increased greatly their invoice activity. They also introduced steps to ensure payment performance improved. Changes to the finance management team, the purchase ordering process and increased monitoring of payments have reduced the risk of payment delay. Monitoring of the earlier part of 2001–02 showed that performance had increased to 71 per cent. The second half to date shows that 98 per cent. of invoices are paid within agreed credit terms.

  The NICS has introduced a number of steps to improve performance. These include establishing a user group to encourage best practice in local offices and increase awareness for staff involved in processing payments. They have also redefined their end of year procedures. Although figures for this financial year (2001–02) show that their performance has decreased slightly to 93.5 per cent. the measures introduced should start making an impact in the financial year 2002–03.

  Possession Orders
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if county courts will sit on bank holidays and Other holiday periods in response to an application by a local authority for a possession order; and if he will make a statement. [34900]

  Mr. Wills
  In order to cater for incidents that may require the attention of a judge, including applications for urgent possession orders, out of normal office hours, on bank holidays and other holiday periods, the Court Service provides a system known as the Urgent Court Business Scheme. This scheme allows for an experienced member of court staff to be contacted during the night, weekends or public holidays, Every circuit has arrangements in place for handling urgent court business outside normal office hours. Urgent business consists of Injunctions, Children Act applications, and other urgent applications such as Possession order applications. Cover is provided between 4.00 pm and 8.30 pm each weekday, between 4.00 pm on Friday until 8.30 am on Monday for each weekend and from 4.00 pm on the last day preceding a public or privilege holiday that the court is open until 8.30 am on the day the court is next open. There will always be a judge available in each UCBO area to deal with urgent court business. In the vast majority of cases the judge will deal with matters over the telephone. Only in the most extreme case should the judge have to meet with the applicant's solicitor. Where this is unavoidable the venue will be arranged by the UCBO in consultation with the judge and the solicitor involved.

  Records (Ireland)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the outcome was of the reassessment in 2000 of the three records dating from 1876 to 1914 concerning activities of the Secret Service in Ireland and Irish terrorist organisations which were being withheld from public disclosure; and if she will make a statement. [35240]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The files were reviewed by the Home Office in conjunction with the Security Service. One file has been released in full, one has been released except for some extracts and one is still withheld. The information that has not been released could be used to identify individuals working for or giving information to the intelligence services.

  Records
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Departments and agencies have(a) applied for extended closure of records and (b) applied to the Lord Chancellor for permission to retain records over 30 years; how many applications were made in each category and how many were granted; if she will list by title each record retained in this way; and what arrangements there are for their review for public disclosure. [35242]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The tables show for 2001, the most recent complete year, by Department, the number of applications for extended closure (Table A) or retention (Table B) and the number approved. An application can 618W
  cover anything from a small extract from a page in a file to a large collection of records. Three formal applications were rejected.

  The full lists of all public records subject to extended closure and retention are kept at the Public Record Office at Kew and are freely available for public inspection there.

  More precise details can be found for most of the records that are subject to extended closure or retention by consulting the PRO online catalogue (http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/). For records not yet transferred to the PRO, the Department holding the records has these details rather than the PRO.

  Permission for retention or extended closure is given for a precise finite period. It is the responsibility of Departmental Record Officers to ensure that the records are re-reviewed, and of the Records Management Department of the PRO to supervise this process.

  Researchers who require access to records held by the PRO and catalogued as closed, or to historical records still held by Departments, should first ask the PRO to check their status. If the records are closed or retained, researchers can apply for a review of access restrictions. They should write to the Departmental Record Officer of the Department that created the records (or its successor) quoting the PRO reference where this is known. Such requests are handled in the order in which they are received except where the information is urgently required for legal purposes.

  Table A: Applications for extended closure of public records in

  2001

  Department

  Number of applications

  Number of applications granted

  Cabinet Office

  13

  13

  The Court Service

  313

  313

  Crown Prosecution Service

  3

  3

  Ministry of Defence

  13

  13

  Department for Education and Skills

  1

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  104

  101

  Department of Health

  16

  16

  Home Office

  11

  11

  Department for International Development

  5

  5

  Legal Services Commission (England and Wales)

  30

  30

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1

  1

  Metropolitan Police Office

  17

  17

  Prime Minister's Office

  10

  10

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions1

  1

  1

  HM Treasury

  1

  1

  Department for Work and Pensions

  8

  8

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  1

  1

  1Formerly Department of Social Security

  Table B: Applications for retention of public records in 2001

  Department

  Number of applications

  Number of applications granted

  Cabinet Office

  15

  15

  HM Customs and Excise

  1

  1

  Ministry of Defence

  19

  19

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs1

  4

  4

  English Partnerships

  1

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  38

  38

  Forestry Commission

  1

  1

  Home Office

  4

  4

  Department for International Development

  2

  2

  Legal Services Commission (England and Wales)

  1

  1

  619W

  Table B: Applications for retention of public records in 2001

  Department

  Number of applications

  Number of applications granted

  Metropolitan police Office

  2

  2

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  1

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  1

  Office for National Statisitics

  2

  2

  Prime Minister's Office

  4

  4

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions2

  3

  3

  HM Treasury

  21

  21

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  7

  7

  1 Formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  2 Formerly Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department what representations she has received advocating a judicial appointments commission; and if she will place copies in the Library. [33749]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Following a recommendation made by Sir Leonard Peach, the Lord Chancellor has already established a commission for judicial appointments to oversee the appointments process.

  During his period of office the Lord Chancellor has received representations proposing the establishment of a judicial appointments commission with more than supervisory functions over the existing appointments system, from the following organisations:

  the Law Society of England and Wales;

  Doncaster and District Law Society:

  the Association of Women Barristers;

  the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers; and

  a number of private individuals.

  Copies of the relevant material from the organisations will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Criminal Justice System Reports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the reports produced by the Lord Chancellor's Department which relate to the criminal justice system since 1978. [35966]

  Mr. Wills
  The information requested is not held centrally within the Lord Chancellor's Department and can be supplied only at disproportionate cost. However, research reports relating to the criminal justice system that have been commissioned and published by LCD Research Secretariat since it was established in 1996 are listed:

  February 2000—"Factors affecting the decision to apply for silk and judicial office", K. Malleson and F. Banda.

  March 2000—"The effects on magistrates of learning that the defendant has a previous conviction", S. Lloyd-Bostock.

  April 1999—'"Reducing delay in the criminal justice system: the views of defence lawyers", L. Bridges and M. Jacobs.

  May 1999—"An empirical analysis of standard fees in magistrates' court criminal cases", A. Gray, P. Fenn and N. Rickman.

  February 1997—"Delay in the criminal justice system", S. Choongh.

  620W

  June 1997—"Judicial appointments commissions: the European and North American experience and the possible implications for the United Kingdom", C. Thomas and K. Malleson.

  September 1997—"Expenditure on legal services", M. Hope, LCD economist (review paper).

  November 1997—"Ethnic monitoring of defendants appearing at Leicester magistrates' court in 1995", Home Office and Professor Philip Bean.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require sex offenders convicted overseas to sign the sex offenders register when they live in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [33020]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are keen to do all we can to protect the public, especially children, from sex offenders. Sex offenders whose offences were committed overseas and who act in a way that gives the police reason to believe they pose a risk to the public can be made subject to a sex offender order, which will require them to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (the register) and can impose restrictions on their behaviour. They can also be the subject of a Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel which will form a plan to manage the risks they pose.

  We were aware of this issue when we announced the review of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and it was discussed with relevant agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) during the review.

  That discussion is reflected in the consultation paper, which was published in July 2001. The review concluded there is no mechanism by which offenders convicted overseas could reliably be made aware of a duty to register with the police when coming to the United Kingdom. the review therefore proposes that where the police become aware of the arrival or presence in the United Kingdom of a sex offender convicted overseas of offences equivalent to those in the United Kingdom that trigger registration, they should be able to apply to the courts for an Order to Register as a Sex Offender. We are currently analysing responses to the review.

  We know of only four countries which have a register of sex offenders and only one which currently requires sex offenders from abroad to register with the police.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Health about contingency measures to be introduced in the event of a smallpox outbreak. [33335)

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: Home Office and Department of Health officials have regular meetings to ensure cross-Government preparedness for responding to a deliberate chemical/ biological release. This work includes arrangements for responding to a smallpox outbreak.
  621W
  Bilateral arrangements with the United States assist us in ensuring preparation for and stocks of vaccine to contain any such eventuality.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in the Greater London area in the last 12 months. [34037]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 576W.

  Football-related Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been convicted of football-related offences in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [34036]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are not available.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce incidents of crowd-related violence at football matches. [34100]

  Mr. Denham
  An extensive array of legislation is in place for tackling football-related disorder. The Government expect the police and courts to make full use of the powers that have been placed at their disposal. The Government work with the police and football authorities in order to ensure that offenders are identified and prosecuted.

  Tobacco Sales (Children)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shopkeepers have been prosecuted for selling tobacco to under-aged children in each of the last three years. [34035]

  Mr. Denham
  166 defendants were proceeded against in England and Wales in 1998 for selling tobacco, etc. to persons under 16. Figures for 1999 and 20001 were 127 and 161 respectively. Figures for 2001 will be available in the autumn.
  1The 2000 figure excludes cases in Staffordshire as Staffordshire police force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and so are excluded from the total.

  Criminal Statistics (Terminology)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definition is used for a female defective in the Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1999. [33980]

  Mr. Denham
  The term 'female defective' is mentioned three times in the 'Criminal statistics, England and Wales' as follows:

  (i) Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective. (Sexual Offences Act 1956, Sec 7 (as amended by the Mental Health Act 1959)).

  622W

  (ii) Procuring, permitting or causing the prostitution etc. of a female defective. (Sexual Offence Act 1956, Secs 9, 27 and 29).

  (iii) Abduction of female defective. (Sexual Offences Act 1956, Sec 32).

  and is part of the definition of the offences referred to.

  It is defined by the Sexual Offences Act 1956, Sec 45, as substituted by Mental Health Act 1959, Sec 127(1) and amended by the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, Sch 3, as follows:
  In this Act 'defective' means a person suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning'.

  The report of the Sex Offences review (set in the boundaries: reforming the law on sex offences) argued that it was 'a demeaning derogatory term' suggested changing the word to
  'a person with severe mental incapacity'.
  in future legislation.

  The Government are considering their response to the review.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the security services concerning a case, details of which have been supplied to him in a letter dated 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [34092]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have received a letter from my hon. Friend to which I have responded today.

  It is not Government policy to discuss individual cases. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 350W.

  Police Numbers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police there(a) were on 1 January and (b) will be on 1 January 2003 in (i) England and Wales and (ii) North Yorkshire. [34010]

  Mr. Denham
  Police numbers are collected twice a year in March and September. There were 127,231 officers in England and Wales on 30 September 2001. The Home Secretary has set a target for overall police strength in England and Wales to reach 130,000 by the spring of 2003.

  North Yorkshire police had 1,390 officers on 30 September 2001. I understand from the chief constable that on 1 January the force had 1,391 officers and that the projected strength for North Yorkshire police for March 2003 is 1,425 officers.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in post in Leicestershire Police Authority in(a) each year between 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [34762]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  623W

  Year1

  Police officers

  Civilian support staff

  1996

  1,908

  667

  1997

  1,949

  755

  1998

  1,983

  774

  1999

  1,993

  802

  2000

  1,993

  805

  2001

  2,033

  806

  1As at 31 March

  Leicestershire Constabulary had a record number of officers at the end of September 2001, at 2,062.

  Metropolitan Police Accommodation
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of police accommodation were(a) sold, (b) put up for sale and (c) withdrawn from sale in each of the last 10 years by the Metropolitan police. [34443]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that the information requested is readily available for the last five years only. This is shown in the table.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Residential Quarters

  Sold

  77

  138

  265

  151

  110

  For Sale

  387

  535

  583

  360

  149

  Withdrawn

  56

  219

  141

  139

  3

  Section Houses

  Sold

  0

  2

  3

  2

  0

  For Sale

  3

  7

  6

  4

  1

  Withdrawn

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Operational Estate

  Sold

  7

  8

  11

  8

  2

  For Sale

  39

  47

  36

  38

  29

  Withdrawn

  6

  6

  3

  1

  5

  Notes:

  The figures record each occasion a property has been offered for sale or withdrawn from the market. Properties that remained on the market for a year or more will appear in more than one annual total of properties for sale. The operational estate refers to buildings not tracts of land.

  Police Salaries
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 686W, in what format the information was available. [34646]

  Mr. Denham
  There are separate national salary scales for each rank in the police service. How much police officers earn depends on their rank, their length of service in the rank and whether they are entitled to premium rates of pay and to allowances in addition to basic salary.

  The Home Office does not hold data on housing costs either by force area or by region.

  Golden Jubilee
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will meet additional policing costs arising from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee. [34660]
  624W
  Mr. Denham
  Where it can be demonstrated there are exceptional additional costs which could not be met from within existing budgets, it is open to forces to apply for a special grant.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if a volunteer who receives expenses will be eligible for exemption from charging for disclosure certificates from the Criminal Records Bureau; [34517]

  (2) what the definition is of a volunteer in the exemptions from charging for disclosure certificates from the Criminal Records Bureau. [34516]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, which were laid before Parliament on 7 February 2002, higher-level disclosures will be issued free of charge to a volunteer, which is defined in the regulations as"a person engaged in an activity which involves spending time, unpaid (except for travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit some third party other than or in addition to a close relative".

  Youth Inclusion
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the areas in London where youth inclusion projects will be operational by March; and what resources will be allocated to each. [35244]

  Mr. Denham
  The Youth Justice Board managed Youth Inclusion Programme has a total of 70 projects in operation across the country. The programme has been at full operational capacity since March 2001. Of these, 13 are operating in London.

  Each project receives annually £75,000 from local partnerships and £75,000 from the Youth Justice Board.

  The areas in London where Youth Inclusion projects are operational are listed in the table:

  Areas in London with Youth Inclusion projects

  Neighbourhood

  Area

  Gascoigne and Barking Roding Valley

  Barking and Dagenham

  Church End estate

  Brent

  Castlehaven

  Camden

  Page estate

  Greenwich

  Woodbury Down

  Hackney

  North Fulham neighbourhood

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Tottenham and Wood Green

  Haringey

  Holloway and Tollington

  Islington

  Dalgarno

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Clapham Park estate

  Lambeth

  Forest Gate

  Newham

  Lawson, Rockingham, Heygate and Draper estates

  Southwark

  Alton estate

  Wandsworth

  Arrests and Detentions
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested and detained in police custody in England and Wales in 1999. [R] [34853]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the financial year 1999–2000 an estimated 1,277,900 persons were arrested for notifiable offences within England and Wales.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the prison budget for England and Wales has been in each of the last 10 years. [35326]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table sets out the total net cash expenditure (current and capital) for the Prison Service for the 10 financial years 1991–92 to 2000–01.

  The budget for 2001–02 is in resource accounting and budgeting terms. The present voted provision, as set out in the Home Office's Winter Supplementary Estimate, includes net Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) funding of £1,739.6 million (including £114.9 million funding from the Youth Justice Board for juvenile places and £46 million from the Department for Education and Skills for prisoners' education costs other than for juveniles); net Capital DEL funding of £218.8 million (including £61.8 million non-cash funding for the capitalisation of Dovegate prison under the Private Finance Initiative; £73.9 million funding for other spending outside of DEL; and £426.6 million net Annually Managed Expenditure (including £15.7 million funding from the Youth Justice Board).

  Prison service net expenditure 1990–91 to 2000–01

  £ million

  Financial year

  Current

  Capital

  Total

  1990–91

  887.7

  453.8

  1,341.5

  1991–92

  1,049.5

  412.6

  1,462.1

  1992–93

  1,138.4

  331.9

  1,470.3

  1993–94

  1,223.7

  285.1

  1,508.8

  1994–95

  1,279.6

  318.3

  1,597.9

  1995–96

  1,336.7

  330.2

  1,666.9

  1996–97

  1,388.5

  220.1

  1,608.6

  1997–98

  1,462.9

  277.9

  1,740.8

  1998–99

  1,611.7

  200.4

  1,812.1

  1999–2000

  1,696.8

  149.6

  1,846.4

  2000–01

  1,659.5

  135.2

  1,794.7

  Notes

  The decrease in capital expenditure from 1996–97 follows the completion of a programme for major capital works. In recent years new prisons have been provided through Private Finance Initiative funding.

  In 200–01 payments of £123.8 million for juvenile places were made by the Youth Justice Board with a resultant decrease in the net operating costs of the Prison Service.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with officials of the Prison Officers Association; and what issues were discussed. [35325]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met most recently with representatives of the Prison Officers Association (POA) on Thursday 7 February 2002 to discuss the recommendations of the Prison Service Pay Review Body and the Government's response to it.
  626W
  The Home Secretary explained that, while the 6 per cent. recommended was not affordable in full from 1 January 2002 without severe implications for Prison Service regimes, he had none the less wanted to respond to the recommendations positively in a way that recognised the value of the staff in the remit group.

  To this end, he had implemented the awards in full within the period covered by the recommendations. In staging the 6 per cent, he had front-loaded the first stage from 1 January 2002 to ensure an immediate pay rise commensurate with that awarded to other public sector groups for the year. In addition, prison officers would receive the further 2.5 per cent. in January 2003. Finally the locality payments for officers in London and south-east, the areas most hard pressed by recruitment and retention problems, would increase by the full 6 per cent. from 1 January 2002.

  C-Far, Okehampton
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by his Department to provide funding for C-Far in Okehampton, Devon; and if he will make a statement. [35531]

  Beverley Hughes
  A payment of £150,000 from the Criminal Justice System Reserve for 2001–02 has been approved as a contribution to the continuing costs of the C-Far "Life Change" programme and will be paid before the end of March. C-Far have also made an application for a further £1.9 million from the Criminal Justice System Reserve in 2002–03. A decision on this application has been deferred pending receipt of an interim evaluation report from C-Far and resolution of outstanding concerns regarding a full, independent assessment of the programme' s effectiveness in reducing re-offending. The national probation service and the Prison Service jointly have set aside £20,000 to assist with the cost of such an independent evaluation.

  Prisoners (Mental Health)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what proportion of prisoners are suffering from a psychotic illness; [35405]

  (2) what proportion of prisoners developed (a) a mental health problem and (b) a psychotic illness while in custody in the last 12 months; [35406]

  (3) how many and what proportion of prisoners are known to have a mental health problem. [35407]

  Beverley Hughes
  A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), showed that some 10 per cent. of remanded men, 7 per cent. of sentenced men and 14 per cent. of all women prisoners had suffered from a functional psychosis in the past year. Applying these rates to the current population would indicate that, on any one day, there would be around 5,300 prisoners in custody who would have suffered from symptoms of a functional psychosis in the previous year.

  The ONS survey also reported that only one in 10 prisoners or fewer showed no evidence of any of the five disorders considered in the survey (personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse, and drug

  627W
  dependence). That would indicate that, at any one time, upwards of 60,000 prisoners would have a mental health problem of some kind.

  The information currently available from research studies does not allow us to form an assessment of the proportion of prisoners who may have developed a mental health problem or psychotic illness while in custody.

  Videos (Legislation)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the Government will bring forward legislation to establish the Video Appeals Committee as a statutory body; [35728]

  (2) if the Government will bring forward legislation to make it an offence (a) to show a Restricted 18 video to a child and (b) to allow a child to view such a video. [35726]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for taking forward these and other issues raised in the Government's consultation paper on R18 videos passed from the Home Office to this Department last year. We are assessing the responses to the consultation and will produce our response as soon as possible.

  BBFC Guidelines
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will require the British Board of Film Classification to submit its classification guidelines for parliamentary approval. [35654]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The BBFC is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate to submit its guideline—which were subject to public consultation—for parliamentary approval.

  Prison Escorts (Tachographs)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what safeguards are in place to ensure that prison custody officers employed to drive prison cellular escort vehicles do not drive for longer than would be the case if they were driving other similar size vehicles covered by the tachograph regulations; [35011]

  (2) what vehicles used by companies involved in the Home Office Prison Court and Escort contracts to escort prisoners to and from courts and between prisons are exempt from tachograph regulations; [35010]

  (3) if he will introduce tachograph regulations to cover cellular vehicles used to carry prisoners on escort. [35009]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The fitting and use of tachographs is governed by European Union (EU) Regulations. Passenger carrying vehicles with fewer than 17 seats are exempt. Prison escort vehicles with between 10 and 17 seats are subject to the separate UK domestic drivers' hours legislation which sets maximum driving and duty limits.

  The European Commission has put forward a proposal to change the existing EU Regulation, including the possible removal of the exemption for passenger vehicles with between 10 and 17 seats. The UK Government are
  628W
  currently consulting on this proposal. Any change to the existing EU law will require the agreement of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

  Escort contractors are expected to comply with all relevant provisions of Road Traffic Legislation in respect of drivers' hours and to maintain, and produce, for inspection by the appropriate authorities, such records as are required.

  Criminal Justice System Business Plan
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the criminal justice system business plan for 2002–03. [37485]

  Mr. Blunkett: My noble and learned Friends the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I will today be publishing a Business Plan for the criminal justice system for England and Wales.

  The plan describes the priorities for the coming year which the Government expect the criminal justice system as a whole to work to deliver.

  Copies of the plan will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26965]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". This report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for the year 2000 will be published shortly.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21264]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999 and staff numbers have increased since that date.

  Details of the number of days lost to sickness absence are shown in the table:

  Number of days

  1 July 1999–31 December 19991

  299

  2000

  442.5

  2001 to 1 November 20011

  727.5

  1Part year

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she expects to reply to the Question of 5 December, ref. 21264, from the hon. Member for Buckingham on sickness absence. [24752]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the number of individuals in her
  629W
  (a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26321]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. My Department has one member of staff whose total remuneration exceeded £100,000 in 2000–01. No individuals have had annual remuneration in excess of £200,000.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27392]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department has had no expenditure on external public relations consultants.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27982]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  In 1999–2000 the cost of theft to the Department was estimated at £2,200. In 2000–01, the Department had no cases of theft or fraud reported.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31793]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A wide range of security measures are in place to deter and detect theft and fraud. These are kept under review and additional measures are put in place as appropriate.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate her Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if she will make a statement. [27292]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. No cases of fraud have been reported since that date.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27944]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  My Department has not incurred any expenditure on opinion polling, focus groups or other forms of market research.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [28007]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date one laptop computer has been stolen. No items have been reported as lost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [34225]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  No items valued at less than £50 have been reported lost or stolen in my Department.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in each of the last four years. [27965]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The Department spent £150,354 on building refurbishment work in 1999–2000.No refurbishment work was carried out in 2000–01.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) her agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30074]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The Department has had no empty properties.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total external spend by her Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [31039]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  My Department has had no expenditure on Private Finance Initiative consultants.

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contracts her Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31322]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no contacts with KPMG.

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in her Department in each of the last four years. [31741]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The average annual leave entitlement of staff in my Department outside the senior civil service was 27.5 days for 1999–2000, 26.7 days for 2000–01 and 26.5 days for 2001–02 to date.

  The annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days and has been so for the last four years.

  Secondments
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii)2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33207]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff have been seconded to my Department by any of the companies listed.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33861]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff have been seconded to my Department by any of the companies listed.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts were let by her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33855]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. No contracts have been let by my Department to any of the companies mentioned.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by her Department to (i) Arthur
  632W
  Andersen, (ii) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34992]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. No contracts have been awarded by my Department to any of the companies listed.

  Scottish Parliament
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions she has recently had on the Scottish Parliament's powers to confer devolved functions on UK bodies; who was present; and if she will make a statement on the conclusions of such meetings; [34801]

  (2) if she will publish the agenda for and list the location of recent meetings she has been involved in to discuss the Scottish Parliament's powers to confer devolved functions on UK bodies; and from which Department supporting officials were provided. [34980]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information relating to internal discussion and advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the Government's policy is on unclaimed benefits among the elderly in Scotland. [35529]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government are committed to ensuring that elderly people eligible for benefits achieve their legal entitlement and that the poorest among our pensioners have a guaranteed minimum income. The minimum income guarantee (MIG) is paid to around 181,000 claimants aged 60 or over in Scotland.

  In May 2000 we launched a national take-up campaign writing to 2 million pensioners across the UK, informing them about MIG. Since October last year, callers to the Retirement Pension Telecentre, who are not in receipt of MIG but identified as possible claimants, have been encouraged to claim. Pensioners claiming retirement pension by post are sent a MIG leaflet.

  We are looking at options to prompt automatically the issue of a claim for MIG following certain key life events, for example when a pensioner reaches age 75 or 80 or when another benefit is awarded. We are also working in partnership with organisations for older people to improve access to benefits and take-up of the MIG. This includes projects on a national good practice guide and a survey of local take-up initiatives.

  Friends of Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Friends of Scotland have been recruited to date; what has been the cost of that project to date; and what its budget is for 2002. [35734]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 January 2002, Official Report, column 169W.
  633W
  The costs of this programme are being met from within the existing resources of the Scotland Office, together with private sponsorship for the Scottish banquet on 28 November 2001. It is not possible to quantify the cost of staff time spent on this programme this year.

  My officials and I are in discussion with interested parties, including the Scottish Executive, about the further development of the initiative. These discussions will inform decisions about the allocation of resources.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [34218]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No items have been stolen or lost from my Department during the period mentioned. More detailed information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34192]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35932]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No such cases have been reported in my Department. My Department recognises that it is obliged by law to provide a safe working environment for employees. It is committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally owing to work related injuries and illnesses arising from the Government's "Revitalising Health and Safety" initiative.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council how many people are employed in his Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35366]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No-one is currently employed in my Department on a job-share basis. No vacant positions have been advertised on this basis in the last 12 months, although an application on a job-share basis would always be considered.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment has been made of the effect of the working time directive on his office's employees; how many 634W
  employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps he is taking to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement. [35884]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In my Department, the working time directive has implications chiefly for employees working directly in support of Ministers. Six private office staff have signed agreements enabling them to work in excess or 48 hours per week; this compares with 14 such staff a year ago. I have recently restructured my office so as to increase the level of clerical support, and this has reduced somewhat the average number of hours worked by private secretaries. Much long hours' working arises from the need to provide support for me in my responsibilities as Leader of the House. Any decision by the House to reform its own working arrangements would be likely to have a positive impact on the working hours of the staff concerned. The working arrangements in my office and in my Department generally are constantly under review. My Department is committed to keeping long hours working to an absolute minimum commensurate with operational needs, and to promoting a proper work/life balance for its employees.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [36182]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  IT Investment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much of the budget for modernising the delivery of the social security system will be spent on(a) the Payment Modernisation Programme, (b) the New IT for the Child Support Agency, (c) new front end systems, (d) replacement of legacy systems, (d) improvements to management information, (e) PCs for all staff, (f) modernising services to pensioners, including preparation for the pension credit and (g) his Department's work on (i) the working tax credit and (ii) the child tax credit. [22059]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 899W, on the 2001 Departmental report, how much and what proportion of the Welfare Modernisation Fund money has been allocated to specific projects. [30136]

  Mr. McCartney
  Available information can be found in the document 'Department for work and pensions: approach to IT investment', a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the safety of staff in jobcentres. [33047]
  635W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Regular health and safety risk assessments and safety inspections are conducted to ensure the safety of staff in Jobcentres. These assessments are reviewed whenever new services are introduced.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce screened reception areas in benefit offices after the removal of security screens for individual desks. [32967]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: In every Jobcentre Plus area there will continue to be screened provision for dealing with those customers and transactions known to give rise to particular risk. The precise type and location of this provision will depend on the recommendations of the risk assessments carried out in each individual Jobcentre Plus office.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the level of physical assaults that have taken place in Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder clusters compared with the level of assaults that have taken place in other centres administered by him. [32966]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: During 2000, (the latest year for which full records are held) there were 164 cases of physical contact between Benefits Agency staff and clients. In the Employment Service, which has twice as many offices as the Benefits Agency, there were 233 cases of physical contact in that year. Cases of physical contact cover any physical contact, including spitting, the throwing of small items such as paper clips or rolled up forms, or touching of any kind. Approximately 190,000 people per day visit Benefits Agency and Employment Service offices, and 100,000 people work in the two agencies.

  In the Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices, since they opened for business on 22 October, there has been one reported case of physical contact between a member of public and a member of staff where a client trod on the foot of a member of staff, possibly by accident. In that period, well over half a million people have passed through Jobcentre Plus offices.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the results were of discussions held with the Health and Safety Executive prior to the removal of glass security screens from the new Jobcentre Plus offices; and what recommendations were made by the Health and Safety Executive. [32638]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: Officials have discussed the changes to delivery associated with Jobcentre Plus and the risk assessment measures we have put in place with the Health and Safety Executive. Overall the HSE were satisfied with the general level of management of safety issues and the areas for improvement they will cover in their report are all within the scope of our current procedures.

  Full risk assessments have been carried out in every Jobcentre Plus office and all of their individual recommendations implemented in full. Safety measures implemented as a result of risk assessments include security guards, installation of closed circuit TV cameras,
  636W
  provision of safety alarm systems, controlled segregation of staff areas using coded door locks and changes to the office layout to maximise safety.

  Officials continue to remain in touch with the Health and Safety Executive as we review the effectiveness of the new service arrangements.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (I) what additional protection he will provide for Benefits Agency staff following the removal of security screens; [32969]

  (2) if he will amend his security plans for benefits offices. [32968]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the removal of screens in Benefits Agency offices. [33048]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to carry out a review of staff safety before removing screening from Benefits Agency offices; and if he will make a statement. [32759]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answers 4 and 6 February 2002]: There are no plans to remove protective screens from Benefits Agency offices until they are converted into fully integrated offices of the new Jobcentre Plus service.

  56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices are already open and operating effectively—with positive feedback from staff and customers. For each of these offices a full health and safety risk assessment has been conducted and its recommendations implemented in full. These risk assessments are now in the process of being reviewed in the light of experience of live operations. The measures implemented to support the safety of staff and improved customer service as a result of the risk assessments include: closed circuit television; better management in each office to avoid difficult situations building up, for example floor managers to greet customers and guide them through their visit; where recommended by risk assessments, security guards with clear instructions as to when to intervene; in each pathfinder area screened facilities to deal with situations likely to give rise to particular risk; a clear zero tolerance policy under which determined action will be taken against anyone threatening or abusing Jobcentre Plus staff.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training was given to his Department's staff with regard to the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 before they came into effect on 23 October. [24218]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Some 50,000 days of training were provided for the approximately 4,000 staff in Jobcentre Plus pathfinder office before they opened in October 2001. The amount of training delivered to individual members of staff was largely dependent on their background and experience. For example, staff new
  637W
  to the personal adviser role received an average of 73 days training, whereas existing personal advisers received an average of eight days training. The requirements of the specific regulations referred to was fully covered in the training provided wherever appropriate.

  Women Workers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of women from ethnic minorities in the labour force. [33826]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  As I explained in my reply to my hon. Member of 11 January 2002,Official Report, column 1045W, women from ethnic minorities can benefit from the range of new deals and other welfare to work initiatives that we have introduced. These initiatives, such as working families tax credit, the national minimum wage and the national child care strategy, help people overcome the barriers to employment and to make work pay. In April this year, we are also introducing a new service in five areas of the country to reach out to people from ethnic minorities who are at a disadvantage in the labour market. The outreach service will explore different ways jobless people from ethnic minority communities can be helped—from attracting people in to mainstream services like new deal to improving links to employers or providing specialist training where appropriate. We are investing £15 million in this new service.

  Measures are also being introduced in the current Employment Bill that will help working mothers to remain within the work force through better balancing of their work and home commitments. This is good for parents, children and business.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to include people under the age of 60, but registered disabled, in the cold weather payment scheme. [34924]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Cold weather payments provide extra help towards heating costs for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society in periods of exceptionally cold weather.

  People under 60 years of age who receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance which includes a premium for disability or long term sickness can already receive cold weather payments. We have no plans to change the eligibility conditions.

  Industrial Injuries (Chemical Agents)
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking on the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on Chemical Agents at Work. [37370]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on chemical agents has been laid before Parliament today (Cm 5395). Copies of the report will be placed in the Library and are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. We are grateful to the council for their work on this subject. After careful consideration we have decided to accept all the recommendations made in the report for changes to the list of prescribed diseases 638W
  under the industrial injuries scheme caused by exposure to chemical agents at work. The necessary regulations will be brought before Parliament in due course to implement the changes.

  Pensions Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to ensure that work and pensions statistics are placed on the Office for National Statistics website on the day of release; and if he will make a commitment to release statistics in non-electronic formats when this is not possible. [28971]

  Mr McCartney
  National Statistics outputs published by the Department for Work and Pensions are normally made available on the departmental website on the day of release (at www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/online.html). Paper based versions of publications are also available and almost all can be found in the library. The title and date of each output is provided in the monthly ONS National Statistics Updates release. This can be found at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/updates.pdf.

  Unemployment (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the employment prospects for the Greater London area. [32124]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department does not make forecasts of the future level of employment. However, despite uncertainty about the prospects for the world economy, the UK labour market is still performing well. The number of people in work in London remains at a high level and has increased by 240,000 since 1997, and is up by 75,000 over the last year.

  Though unemployment in the capital has increased over the year, this is because the number of people in London's labour force has increased by more than the rise of employment. New vacancies are displayed in London Jobcentres all the time—over a thousand every working day, with many more available through other recruitment channels.

  Like other regions, some areas within London have employment rates well below the national average. Initiatives such as Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones are supporting areas like these through new and innovative ways of helping jobless people move into work.

  Pensions Downrating
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners a year over the last four years had their pensions reduced after a six week stay in hospital; what estimate he has made of how much money was raised in that way; what estimate he has made of the costs in administration of(a) reducing and (b) reinstating those pension payments; what proportion of people whose pensions were reduced subsequently experienced delays in their benefits being reinstated when they left hospital; and what plans he has to review these rules. [31237]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is in the tables.
  639W

  Number of people as of 31 March in each individual year with their pension down-rated

  Year

  Number down-rated six to 52 weeks

  March 1998

  19,000

  March 1999

  20,000

  March 2000

  22,000

  March 2001

  23,000

  Notes:

  1.Figures rounded to nearest 1,000.

  2.Information is not available prior to 1997–98.

  3.Administrative data only records information at an individual point in time. It is therefore not possible to give the total number of people who have their pension down-rated during the course of a year, only the total number at a particular point in time.

  Reduction in state pension expenditure due to six weeks hospital downrating

  £ million

  Year

  Over six weeks

  1996–97

  22

  1997–98

  22

  1998–99

  24

  1999–2000

  26

  2000–01

  28

  Notes:

  1. Cash terms

  2. Rounded to the nearest £ million

  The Benefit Agency's administration costs are published in the Benefits Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library. The costs are not classified by individual tasks but an estimate of the staff costs for administration of hospital downrating is around £0.5 million.

  The information about the proportion of people whose pensions were reduced and who subsequently experienced delays in their benefits being reinstated when they left hospital is not collected.

  The Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, has looked at issues affecting hospital in-patients including rules governing the downrating of benefits.

  This rule prevents double provision from public funds as the publicly funded NHS maintains people while they stay in hospital as well as providing free treatment. Social security maintenance benefits are also paid from state funds. They are therefore not paid in full indefinitely where a person is in a NHS hospital and having their day to day living expenses met through the NHS.

  The double provision principle, is a key cornerstone of the system of national insurance introduced over 50 years ago.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 710W, on hospital downrating, what the saving to public funds was from the downrating of pensions for people staying (a) more than six weeks and (b) more than 52 weeks in hospital. [30130]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.
  640W

  £ million

  Downrating type

  6–52 weeks

  Over 52 weeks

  Total

  1997–98

  22

  33

  55

  1998–99

  24

  32

  56

  1999–2000

  26

  30

  56

  2000–01

  28

  29

  57

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in cash terms

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27399]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department (including the former DSS and the part of the former DfEE which are now the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions) incurred the following expenditure on public relations consultancies since 1998–99:

  £

  1998–99

  342,440

  1999–2000

  317,267

  2000–01

  1 201,811

  2001–02

  2 234,000

  1 Includes £45,607 (rounded up to £46,000 for the new deal also included in the written answer to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Young People and Learning (Mr. Lewis) on 25 January 2002, Official Report, column 1130W.

  2 To end November.

  Note:

  Agencies of the Department registered no expenditure on public relations consultancies over the last four years.

  New Deal
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the New Deal supports unemployed people who wish to start their own businesses, with special reference to Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [21812]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise the importance of the role of self-employment in the economy and helping unemployed people set up their own businesses is a key feature of our welfare to work initiatives. Eligible unemployed jobseekers can receive help entering self-employment through the new deals or through the Work-Based Learning for Adults (WBLA) programme. This help is available in all parts of the country, including Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  The self-employment model for people entering from new deals for young people, 25 plus, lone parents and partners or WBLA has three stages:

  Stage 1: a one day basic awareness and information session;

  Stage 2: four one day courses/counselling leading to the production of a business plan;

  Stage 3: up to 26 weeks of test trading (up to 13 weeks in WBLA), in which the participant receives: experience of the responsibilities and realities of self employment;

  641W

  an allowance equivalent to their previous level of benefit (plus a small weekly top up allowance) to avoid going into debt;

  on-going advice and counselling from a business mentor; supported training and;

  continued aftercare once test trading has finished.

  A range of help and financial support is also available to people moving into self-employment through new deal 50 plus. This includes help and advice from a new deal personal adviser, a tax free Employment Credit paid in addition to someone's income for up to 52 weeks, and an in-work training grant.

  The new deal for disabled people is piloting a range of approaches to find out how best to help people on incapacity benefits move into and remain in work. People in receipt of qualifying benefits have access to a network of innovative job brokers across Great Britain who will help and support them in finding and keeping work. As part of the service they offer, job brokers work with people who wish to start their own businesses and offer them support once they have moved into work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed in his Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35365]

  Dr. John Reid
  33 staff are currently employed by the Northern Ireland office on a jobshare contract.

  71 per cent. of vacant positions advertised in the last 12 months were open to job-sharing arrangements.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35931]

  Dr. John Reid
  There have been a total of five confirmed work-related stress cases over the last three years; two cases in 1999, one case in 2000 and two cases in 2001. No compensation has been paid to employees in each of the last three years. On the five confirmed cases, the working days lost were 352 days in 1999, one year and 86 days in 2000, and one year and 126 days in 2001. Of the five confirmed cases, the costs were £35,212.84 in 1999, £48,611.32 in 2000, and £63,366.58 in 2001.

  The procedures in place include the provision of the departmental welfare service; facilities such as phased return to work, the introduction of work-life balance policies; and early referral by personnel to the occupational health service. Costs are not recorded specifically against work-related stress.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the effect of the working time directive on his Department's642W
  employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps he is taking to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement. [35891]

  Dr. John Reid
  The regulations are operated within the Department and it is only exceptional where business needs require staff to be invited to work in excess of the 48 hour limit.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-Departmental premises in each of the last four years giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34276]

  Dr. John Reid
  As no records of this information are kept centrally, this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34195]

  Dr. John Reid
  As no records of this information are kept centrally, this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) payments made and (b) running costs have been of the (i) arable area payment scheme, (ii) suckler cow premium scheme, (iii) hill livestock compensatory allowance, (iv) hill farming allowance, (v) countryside stewardship scheme and (vi) environmentally sensitive areas schemes since 1996. [29995]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The amounts paid for (i) arable area payments scheme were:

  £

  Scheme year

  Amount paid

  Administration costs

  1996

  1,054,740,241

  6,824,000

  1997

  1,055,721,796

  6,388,000

  1998

  985,942,025

  6,730,000

  1999

  1,130,409,358

  6,347,000

  2000

  882,979,696

  1 7,222,000

  1 Estimated outturn

  The amounts paid for (ii) suckler cow premium scheme were:

  £

  Scheme year

  Amount paid

  Administration costs

  1996

  81,524,702

  2,685,900

  1997

  78,762,180

  2,373,600

  1998

  77,854,276

  2,493,300

  1999

  70,567,139

  3,752,071

  2000

  67,923,516

  3,742,781

  643W
  The amounts paid for (iii) hill livestock compensatory allowance were:

  £

  Scheme year

  Amount paid

  Administration costs

  1996

  27,128,357

  1,127,000

  1997

  41,398,518

  996,000

  1998

  28,086,148

  1,046,000

  1999

  44,288,837

  1,755,281

  2000

  43,666,451

  927,037

  There were no amounts paid for (iv) hill farm allowance for these periods.

  The amounts paid for (v) countryside stewardship scheme were:

  £

  Scheme year

  Amount paid

  Administration costs

  1996

  12,468,000

  2,031,000

  1997

  17,126,000

  1,793,000

  1998

  22,030,000

  1,884,000

  1999

  26,038,000

  1,773,000

  2000

  31,915,000

  2,918,000

  The amounts paid for (vi) environmentally sensitive areas scheme were:

  £ million

  Scheme year

  Amount paid

  Administration costs

  1996

  27,591,000

  1,461,000

  1997

  32,984,000

  1,290,000

  1998

  36,376,000

  1,355,000

  1999

  41,144,000

  1,743,000

  2000

  43,807,000

  2,005,000

  Agriculture, Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from(a) the National Assembly for Wales and (b) the Secretary of State for Wales regarding the devolution of full powers on agricultural affairs to the National Assembly for Wales; and if she will make a statement. [32223]

  Mr. Morley
  On 1 February we received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, following a discussion he had had with the Minister for Rural Affairs of the Welsh Assembly on the question of the devolution of further functions in respect of animal health. This is an aspect of devolution that is likely to be looked at by the independent foot and mouth disease inquiries. This is an important matter which will need to be carefully looked at in the light of any recommendations from these inquiries.

  Seals and Dolphins
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what scientific evidence she has evaluated that the feeding habits of(a) grey seals, (b) common seals and (c) dolphins are likely to have a significant detrimental effect on the fish stocks in the waters around England and Wales; [32598]
  644W
  (2) what studies she has evaluated on the average amount of fish consumed each year by an individual adult (a) grey seal, (b) common seal and (c) dolphin; [32595]

  (3) what scientific evidence she has evaluated on whether culling seals would be an effective strategy for fisheries management in England and Wales; and what studies she has evaluated on the success of seal culling initiatives in other countries in increasing commercial fish catch. [32599]

  Mr. Morley
  1985 diet data indicate that grey seals require about 5,500Kcals of energy per day, equivalent to about 7kg of cod or 4kg of sandeels (the difference being due to the oil content of the fish). Diet composition varies seasonally and by area, but is mostly sandeels, gadoids (predominantly cod) and flatfish. The same is true for common seals whose daily dietary requirement is less, at around 3,000 Kcals. However, most of the fish consumed are likely to have been juveniles and, given the high rates of natural mortality for these species, there is no guarantee that had they not been caught they would have survived to reach a size at which they would have been available to commercial fishermen.

  Equivalent information is not available for dolphins.

  The Natural Environment Research Council's Special Committee on Seals has advised that populations in England and Wales are still below the levels which preceded the outbreak of the phocine distemper virus in 1988 and that on that basis and the lack of clear scientific evidence seals are having a major impact on commercial fish stocks, there is no justification for a cull.

  Livestock Movements
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the 20-day standstill order scheme to apply to individual animals instead of holdings; and what assessment she has made of the efficacy of such a change on the practical management of livestock farms. [33374]

  Mr. Morley
  Veterinary advice is that for biosecurity reasons, the 20-day standstill rule should continue to apply to holdings rather that individual animals although a number of exceptions to this rule are being permitted under the livestock movement regime which was introduced on 11 February.

  Any future changes will need to ensure the continued segregation of incoming animals from the rest of the livestock in order to maintain biosecurity. This situation will be kept under review.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what events(a) she is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the golden jubilee celebrations; and what events her Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the golden jubilee. [33253]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  Epidemics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what definition of epidemic(a) is used by her Department and (b) was used by its predecessor. [33714]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The Chief Veterinary Officer would usually consider that a pattern whereby over a period of time, the number of new cases confirmed each day substantially exceeded the previous day's total, would provide reasonable grounds to consider an outbreak to be an epidemic.

  Brown Rats
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the contribution of wild brown rats to the spread of foot and mouth disease; and what the result of such assessment was. [34067]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been no recent assessment of the contribution of wild brown rats to the spread of foot and mouth disease.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what proportion of farms affected by foot and mouth disease steps were taken to eradicate the brown rat population; and how many rat bodies were recovered as the result of treatments. [34068]

  Mr. Morley
  Steps were taken to eradicate brown rats on all infected premises, on dangerous contact premises and on slaughter on suspicion premises. Rat bodies were destroyed immediately and there are no records of the numbers involved.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [34208]

  Mr. Morley
  In the last four years there have been several reports of lost or stolen items ranging from personal groceries to small pieces of office equipment such as a dictaphone or calculator. The estimated value of these small items by year is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1998

  148.30

  1999

  107.25

  2000

  46.70

  2001

  1—

  1 None reported

  Data from 8 June 2001 relate to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs while previous information covers Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Animal Health Strategy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's animal health strategy is. [34108]
  646W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The recent Policy Commission report on the future of farming and food recommended that a comprehensive animal health strategy be devised and implemented. In addition, the on-going inquiries into the foot and mouth epidemic may affect our approach to animal health. The Government will consider the recommendations of these inquiries to determine whether the existing strategy, as described in the CVO's annual reports, should be amended.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the most recent results of the monitoring of the environmental implications of the foot and mouth burial site at Throckmorton airfield. [34484]

  Mr. Morley
  Monitoring of the site since May 2001 has demonstrated that degradation of carcases is under way. The great majority of the fluids from the degradation (the leachate) is abstracted and taken to a treatment facility for processing (Minworth water reclamation works). To reduce the risk of unacceptable migration of the small remaining amounts of leachate, a low permeability barrier has been constructed within the ground.

  Intense monitoring of surface water, ground water, and ground gas is being carried out under the supervision of the Environment Agency. Migration through the ground of the remnant degradation by-products is proceeding at an environmentally acceptable rate. All results are currently within environmentally acceptable limits. The Department will continue to manage, monitor and carry out remedial measures on the site for as long as is necessary, all under the oversight of the Environment Agency.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department expects to contribute to farmers in North Yorkshire in foot and mouth compensation and clean up payments; and how many farms will receive payments. [34683]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department expects to pay farmers in North Yorkshire as a result of foot and mouth disease as follows:

  Compensation for animals slaughtered—£124,460,216

  Compensation for items seized and destroyed—£2,989,645

  Cleansing and disinfecting costs paid to farmers—£16,101,929.

  Payments are being made in relation to 765 premises in North Yorkshire.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Government expect to contribute in grants to businesses in North Yorkshire other than farms to help them to deal with the consequences of foot and mouth. [34684]

  Mr. Morley
  The total foot and mouth business recovery fund allocation to North Yorkshire, both from Yorkshire Forward's existing resources and from those
  647W
  made specifically available by the Department, is some £5.5 million. This is all available to small non-agriculture businesses.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the value is of losses notified to her Department caused by the foot and mouth epidemic suffered by non-profit making organisations; [35671]

  (2) if she will list all the non-profit making organisations who have contacted her to report financial losses caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. [35672]

  Alun Michael
  Various not-for-profit organisations have contacted the Department about the impact that foot and mouth disease and the measures taken to control it have had on their operations. These include the Youth Hostels Association (who estimate the impact on their income in 2001 to be £5million), National Trust (£4.5 million), National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs (£0.5 million), the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (£0.25 million), the Holiday Fellowship, Farm Stay UK, the Wetlands and Wildfowl Trust (£0.6 million), the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (£0.25 million) and the Field Studies Council. Purely local organisations are not included; and, given the practical difficulty of checking all the correspondence received by the Department and its predecessors, the list may not be comprehensive.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many public footpaths and public open spaces are closed due to the foot and mouth epidemic; and if she will make a statement. [35668]

  Alun Michael
  Well over 99 per cent. of rights of way in England are open again. Remaining closures are where rights of way pass through the farmyards of premises still under veterinary restrictions, until re-stocking procedures are completed. Most of these restrictions will be lifted in the coming few weeks.

  A small number of farms are not re-stocking, and will remain under veterinary restrictions into the summer. Any rights of way through those farmyards will remain closed, unless temporary diversions can be put in place. I am urging local authorities to publish clear information on their websites and through helplines and tourist information centres about where these few remaining closures are located.

  I am not aware of any public open spaces still closed because of foot and mouth disease.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if the Countryside Agency will be permitted to claim costs of administration from the Countryside Access Recovery Fund; and if she will make a statement; [35673]

  (2) what the criteria is for the selection and allocation of money to organisations making claims to the Countryside Access Recovery Fund; and if she will make a statement; [35669]
  648W
  (3) if non-profit making organisations making claims to the Countryside Access Recovery Fund will have their administration costs paid by her Department; [35674]

  (4) if the Countryside Agency has been allocated special funding for the administration of the Countryside Access Recovery Fund; and if she will make a statement. [35670]

  Alun Michael
  Grants from the Countryside Access Recovery Fund will be disbursed in accordance with the guidelines I published when I announced the fund on 5 February. These are set out as follows:

  Guidelines for the Countryside Access Recovery Fund

  (1) Grants from the fund will be available to support approved projects developed by not-for-profit organisations concerned with promoting countryside access and/or understanding of the English countryside and will be subject to the criteria set out as follows:

  (2) The package of support for an individual organisation or project will vary from case to case. The fund will be used for direct support to expenditure by not-for-profit organisations on: (i) improvements and renovations or provision of new buildings or other infrastructure to help secure, expand or enhance the activity of the organisation related to the promotion of access to or understanding of the countryside; (ii) advice and consultancy to help them adjust and plan their recovery; and (iii) activities to promote access to, and understanding of the countryside.

  (3) Before direct support is provided to an individual not-for-profit organisation they must satisfy the Countryside Agency that: (i) the financial position of the organisation has been substantially adversely affected by the incidence of FMD and/or the measures taken to control it; (ii) the organisation has taken all reasonable action to mitigate the impact (including claiming rate relief and tax, VAT and NIC deferral where eligible), and where appropriate has drawn on other sources of support (including contributions from the private sector, appeals to members etc.); (iii) the organisation would be financially viable apart from the effect of FMD, and expects to return to its normal level of income by 31 December 2002.

  (4) Grants will normally cover a maximum of 60 per cent. of the project cost. Applications for grants must be received by 30 April 2002 and the grant will be payable on proof of expenditure.

  (5) The scheme will be administered by the Countryside Agency. Potential applicants should contact the Countryside Agency (01242 533237) for a preliminary discussion.

  Fuller guidance for prospective applicants will be available from the Countryside Agency. If eligible applications exceed available resources, regard will be had to how far applications meet the criteria and how effectively they would promote the objectives of the fund.

  Organisations will not have their costs of applying to the fund paid for by the Department, but the overhead costs of projects may be included. My officials are in discussion with the Countryside Agency about the costs they may incur in administering the scheme on DEFRA's behalf.
  649W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government are investigating the use of vaccination in response to a future foot and mouth outbreak. [35630]

  Mr. Morley
  Yes. Vaccination is a disease control option, whose use was investigated and kept under review during the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak. Like all other disease control options, we are currently considering its future use as part of the review of our contingency planning.

  Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Secretary for Agriculture in the National Assembly for Wales on assistance for the English and Welsh shellfish industries, in recovering from the impact of recent diarrhetic shellfish poisoning outbreaks. [34533]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the economic, employment and environmental impact of recent outbreaks of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning in the UK. [34535]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The devolved Administrations have responsibility for making such assessments in their own areas. In England, we have, at the request of the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee, made provision under the Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1994 for greater flexibility in the management of the fishery to help minimise the impact of any closures on local cockle fishermen.

  Legislative Reform (Cruelty to Animals)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to propose reform and legislation relating to cruelty to animals, with particular reference to the tethering of horses. [34756]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, it is an offence to cause a horse, ass or mule unnecessary suffering including as a result of the manner or conditions in which it was tethered.

  The Department is currently reviewing the legislation relating to the welfare of captive and domestic animals, including that which affects the tethering of horses. More information about the review can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/animalwelfare/ letter.htm.

  CAP Spending (Euros)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much per year has been spent in euros at current exchange rates in the EU as a whole on the common agricultural policy in each of the last five years. [34679]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table give the cost of the common agricultural policy throughout the EU at current exchange rates.
  650W

  FEOGA years

  Cost of the CAP in euros (millions)

  Cost of the CAP converted into pounds (millions) at £/euro = 0.6163

  1996

  39,108

  24,102

  1997

  40,675

  25,068

  1998

  38,748

  23,881

  1999

  39,541

  24,369

  2000

  40,435

  24,920

  Water Sports
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when DEFRA-funded research into water-based sport and recreation was discussed by(a) the Environment Agency Board and (b) each regional fisheries, ecology and recreation advisory committee. [34963]

  Alun Michael
  An information paper was presented to regional fisheries, ecology and recreation advisory committees at the time the DETR research was commissioned (2001). The final report to DEFRA has only just been published and the summary report will be provided to Committees for the April 2002 round of meetings. The report may subsequently be referred to the agency board.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will request the Environment Agency to make a comparative study of arrangements for access to water for non-powered craft in other European countries; and if she will make a statement; [34957]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the compatibility of angling and canoeing activities on waters where there is a statutory right of navigation; and if she will make a statement. [34956]

  Alun Michael
  In December 2001 we published the findings of research into the facts about water-based sport and recreation. The report, "Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts", considered the relations between users including anglers and canoeists. The research did not extend to examining the provision of access to water in other European countries.

  DEFRA officials will shortly be meeting the other sponsors of the research (British Waterways, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and Sport England) and other interested Government Departments. In the light of those decisions I shall consider what further work or action we may need to undertake in the light of the report's findings.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list new access agreements to moving water for canoeists in England and Wales reached in each of the last 10 years. [34958]

  Alun Michael
  Such information is not held by this Department or its agencies. However, the report, "Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts", found that there were formal access agreements on 812 km of major inland rivers that are not public navigations. Over two thirds of agreements are either for the angling closed season or periods of less than one month.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what progress she has made in increasing organic food production as a proportion of total UK food production; [34665]

  (2) what plans she has to set a target for the proportion of farmland to be farmed organically. [34666]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: We have made a significant amount of money available to assist farmers to convert to organic production and will continue to do so. In April 1999 we introduced the Organic Farming Scheme offering greatly increased rates of aid compared to the previous scheme. Since then the area of land under organic management in England has risen from 0.6 per cent. to 1.7 per cent. of agricultural land. And we have budgeted expenditure of £140 million over the lifetime of the England Rural Development Programme, which should triple the area under organic management by 2006; however, the Government do not have any plans to set a specific target for proportion of land to be farmed organically. The development of the UK organic sector will be carried forward in the context of an organic food and farming action plan once the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the future of Farming and Food have been taken into account.

  Genotype Errors
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 241W, on genotype errors, if she will list the different types of errors that were discovered upon the retesting of the samples. [34863]

  Mr. Morley
  The errors which occurred at LGC were as follows:Problems with the bar code reader on the robot handling the samples resulted in manual interventions which in turn caused errors in the identification of samples;
  A second robot was misaligned and this resulted in the incorrect transfer of samples, causing errors in the identification of samples;
  There were two sets of problems with the main testing methodology used by LGC. The first caused delays but not errors. The second was a technical problem with the assay. The latter resulted in the false reading of three samples.

  Fisheries
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 409, on fisheries, if she will make a statement on whether the effort distribution set out in the proposal for the cod and hake recovery programme will be directly linked to the quota distribution scheme as under the present Relative Stability keys. [35881]

  Mr. Morley
  In their proposals for measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks, the Commission envisage that the allocation of permitted effort between member states should be based on relative fishing effort by each member state's fleet over the reference period 1998–2000. The Commission proposals effectively leave the distribution of the national effort allocation within each member state to national discretion.
  652W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made in securing the effective UK management control over fishing effort within the(a) six and (b) 12-mile limit from the UK's coastline. [35264]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: A decision on the six and 12-mile limits will be taken as part of the CFP review in 2002. Previous discussions in the Council of Ministers have revealed a very strong consensus among member states in favour of renewing the present provisions; the commission is also known to support them. For my part, I shall be making every effort to get the limits made permanent.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fishermen there were and what the value of fish caught by the fishing industry was in each relevant constituency in each year since 1990. [34869]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Data are not available by constituency. However estimates of the number of fishermen from 1994 by district and the value of fish landed by UK vessels over 10m in length for the major UK ports are published in UK Sea Fisheries Statistics available in the Library of the House.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 242W, if (a) the whole £6 million decommissioning scheme funds will be paid through her Department's account and (b) the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Objective I budget will be fully restored. [35293]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: It is in the public interest for grant payments under the fishing vessel decommissioning scheme to be co-financed by EU funds, and we will therefore draw on the available EU finance. Under the Community requirements the EU contribution for vessels which under the scheme are Cornish must be set against the total allocation of EU funds for the Cornish Objective 1 fisheries programme for the 2000–06 period. this arrangement was agreed by the Objective 1 programme monitoring committee for the decommissioning scheme.

  This process does not reduce the availability of the £5 million funds which we have made available for fisheries for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 under the Cornish programme. Only £1 million of this provision has so far been committed through projects approved by the Objective 1 Working Group. I welcome the work being undertaken by the fisheries task force to develop a strategy for future expenditure in Cornwall.

  Bovine TB
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many herds are under movement restrictions imposed by her Department owing to overdue bovine tuberculosis tests; and if she will make a statement. [35533]

  Mr. Morley
  Around 1,000 herds are expected to be affected by the measures introduced on 31 January 2002 to re-impose movement restrictions on certain herds in
  653W
  annual testing parishes. These herds had an overdue six or 12 month test after the lifting of movement restrictions following a previous TB incident.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effects of the suspension of the bovine tuberculosis testing programme during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease on the incubation and spread of TB; and if she will make a statement. [35534]

  Mr. Morley
  We will not be able to assess accurately the impact of the diversion of resources to deal with the foot and mouth disease emergency on the spread of TB until the backlog of tests has been cleared. As clearance of the backlog and routine testing is being prioritised according to veterinary risk assessment, the early results are from those premises considered most likely to be affected.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press releases were issued about bovine TB by her Department and MAFF in each of the past 36 months. [35536]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of press releases issued about bovine TB per month in the past 36 months is as follows:

  Year/month

  Number

  1999

  February

  0

  March

  4

  April

  0

  May

  0

  June

  0

  July

  0

  August

  0

  September

  2

  October

  1

  November

  1

  December

  4

  2000

  January

  3

  February

  2

  March

  3

  April

  0

  May

  1

  June

  0

  July

  0

  August

  3

  September

  1

  October

  3

  November

  1

  December

  1

  2001

  January

  1

  February

  1

  March

  0

  April

  0

  May

  0

  June

  0

  July

  0

  August

  1

  September

  1

  October

  1

  November

  1

  December

  0

  2002

  January

  1

  654W
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to speed up the bovine tuberculosis testing programme since the lifting of foot and mouth disease control restrictions; and if she will calculate the number of personnel employed by her Department in executing the bovine TB testing programme. [35535]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the foot and mouth emergency we are re-directing resources to the research and control strategy to tackle TB in cattle including the testing programme. To date over 5,800 working hours have been recorded on the testing programme in December 2001. Some 90 per cent. of this comprised work by administrative staff and the remainder by veterinary professionals.

  As at 1 January 2002 the complement of permanent veterinary staff of the State Veterinary Service tasked with undertaking, among other matters, the bovine TB testing programme was 218 veterinary officers and 24 divisional veterinary managers. In addition to permanent veterinary staff we are also employing temporary veterinary inspectors. Currently there are 340 in post carrying out similar functions to veterinary officers including work on testing as part of the TB control strategy. Primarily local veterinary inspectors from private practice undertake the actual testing on farms. There are nearly 4,000 approved who will spend a varying proportion of their time carrying out testing on our behalf.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of the NURAD programme. [35277]

  Mr. Morley
  The NURAD budget presented in the Business Case approved by Treasury showed total costs of £41.9 million over the full seven years, with IT development costs of £29.3 million over the CSR period 1999–2000.

  Total expenditure from April 1999 until programme suspension was £13.2 million of which £6.8 million is reusable assets and £6.4 million nugatory construction in progress expenditure that has been formally written off.

  Parishes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 1018W, what use her Department will make of the list of parishes and sleeping parishes deposited in the Library; and what her estimate is of the cost to the Countryside Agency of preparing this list. [35274]

  Alun Michael
  The data in the list were collected as part of the Countryside Agency's regular Rural Services Survey and used to prepare the Rural White Paper headline indicator of community vibrancy. The list arose from the need to answer a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 320W on rural parishes. No other use of the list is intended. Preparation of the list in the format requested is estimated to have cost two days of staff time.
  655W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the parish councils of(a) Broad Town, (b) Chippenham Without, (c) Great Somerford, (d) Grittleton, (e) Kington St. Michael, (f) Lea and Cleverton, (g) Luckington, (h) Lydiard Millicent, (i) Minety, (j) Nettleton, (k) North Wraxall, (l) Norton and Foxley, (m) Oaksey, (n) Seagry, (o) Stanton St. Quintin, (p) Tockenham, and (q) Yatton Keynell in North Wiltshire were omitted from the list of parishes deposited in the Library. [35815]

  Alun Michael
  I understand that all of the above mentioned parish councils were sent questionnaires by the Countryside Agency as part of the Rural Services Survey. However, the completed questionnaire was not returned to the agency so it was not possible to complete an indicator score for them.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if, pursuant to her answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 320W, on rural parishes, she will define what parameters were used in defining parishes according to the four categories; and what factors led to the choice of these categories for parish activity; [35814]

  (2) which criteria were used by her Department and the Countryside Agency to determine that (a) Braydon, (b) Hankerton and (c) Easton Grey parish councils are sleeping; [35867]

  (3) which criteria were used by her Department and the Countryside Agency to determine that (a) St. Paul Malmesbury Without, (b) Kington Langley, (c) Brokenborough, (d) Bremhill and (e) Lydiard Tregoze parish councils are barely active. [35866]

  Alun Michael
  The former DETR asked the Countryside Agency to develop an indicator of community vibrancy for inclusion in the Rural White Paper with a view to measuring agreed change over time. It was decided to use measurable factors that could be collected as part of the Countryside Agency's Rural Services Survey but with the expectation that the indicator would develop over time. The information collected and used comprised of contested parish council elections, the presence of a village hall or similar local meeting place, the presence of a public house, and incidence of local traditions and events. Full details are set out in the Countryside Agency's State of the Countryside report 2001 where it was noted that there is a marked relationship between the indicator score and population size. The indicator was reported at the national level.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in her Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [35927]
  656W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has received a total of three centrally reported cases of work-related stress among staff over the past three years. No compensation has been paid in any of these cases. Time of work totalled 245 days at a cost of £6,225.

  It is not possible to quantify the cost of this strategy without detailed analysis of all work groups which is not practicable.

  The Department has set a target to reduce the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill-health by 30 per cent. by 2010. This mirrors the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy target.

  DEFRA was established in June 2001. Since then, the Management Board has established a sub-committee on stress which recommended a number of actions currently under way. A stress policy statement for the new Department will be issued this year.

  Organophosphate Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the international studies of the effect of exposure to organophosphate pesticides, with particular reference to their use in agriculture, which are under review in her Department; and if she will make a statement. [35403]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: It would not be possible to list all of the studies, both national and international, which have been submitted by companies to support applications for approvals or for reviews of organophosphate pesticides. The information is not collected in this format and it would be too resource intensive and disproportionate in cost to collate one. For example, 171 published and unpublished studies were evaluated for the review of the organophosphate, chlorpyrifos and a list of over 2,000 other studies which were available was also submitted.

  At the conclusion of these reviews, as is normal practice, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides' evaluation documents will be made available and will include a list of the studies which have been evaluated. No evaluation documents have yet been published.

  Cetacean Deaths
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her counterparts in(a) Scotland, (b) France, (c) Denmark and (d) other nations regarding the incidence of cetacean deaths in the English Channel and western approaches. [35477]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: In order to have an impact on the problem identified by the monitoring work, action will need to be taken—either by introducing mitigation measures or by other means—at EU level, as vessels from a number of member states are involved. Following consultation with the Scottish Executive, I have therefore written on 4 February to Commissioner Fischler to alert him to the need for action. I will be maintaining contact with the Commission and other member states to follow this up.
  657W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent of cetacean bycatch in the(a) fair-trawl,(b) industrial trawl and (c) other pelagic fishery sectors in each of the last three years. [35478]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Information on the full extent of cetacean casualties caused by fishing is not available.

  The Department has commissioned sample monitoring of the incidental capture of cetaceans through a number of research contracts with the Sea Mammal Research Unit. This research has demonstrated that there is a cetacean bycatch problem in pelagic trawl fisheries. We are therefore pressing forward with trials of mitigation measures to reduce bycatch.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) recent work has been and (b) present work is being undertaken to discover the (i) extent and (ii) cause of cetacean deaths in recent (A) years and (B) months in the English Channel and western approaches. [35476]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The Department funds a co-ordinated investigation carried out by The Natural History Museum in co-operation with the Institute of Zoology and the Scottish Agricultural College which aims to find out and record the cause of death of stranded cetaceans, what species, sex and length they are, and when and where they strand.

  In January 2002, 75 cetacean strandings were reported along the coast of Cornwall, Devon and Dorset, with another eight animals reported along the coast of Hampshire and West Sussex. Post-mortem examinations were conducted on 34 of these cetaceans, 27 of which were found to have been bycaught, four were live strandings, and one died of pneumonia. In the rest of England and Wales, a further 19 cetacean strandings were reported. The number of strandings is not unusual for this time of year, taking account of the recent adverse weather conditions. Figures are not currently available for the latter months of 2001.

  During the period from 1 January to 31 March in Great Britain, 155 cetaceans were reported as stranding in 2001 (of which 82 were in Devon and Cornwall), 125 in 2000 (of which 53 animals were found in Devon and Cornwall), 114 in 1999 and 113 animals were reported in 1998.

  Inventory of Woodland and Trees 1995–99

  Woodland Census 1979–1982

  Region/county

  Land area

  Woodland area (ha)

  Woodland cover (%)

  Land area

  Woodland area (ha)

  Woodland cover (%)

  Greater London

  157.916

  6,204

  3.9

  157,946

  6,032

  3.8

  South-east

  Berkshire

  125,879

  18,308

  14.5

  125,891

  17,018

  13.5

  Buckinghamshire

  187,673

  17,573

  9.4

  188,285

  15,618

  8.3

  East Sussex

  179,541

  29,924

  16.7

  179,519

  28,044

  15.6

  Hampshire

  377,872

  66,939

  17.7

  377,685

  62,049

  16.4

  Isle of Wight

  38,014

  4,549

  12.0

  38,097

  3,695

  9.7

  Kent

  373,499

  39,487

  10.6

  373,063

  42,664

  11.4

  Oxfordshire

  260,595

  18,235

  7.0

  260,793

  15,369

  5.9

  Surrey

  167,713

  37,564

  22.4

  167,924

  31,531

  18.8

  West Sussex

  198,808

  37,507

  18.9

  198,939

  34,524

  17.4

  Region

  1,909,594

  279,084

  14.1

  1,910,196

  250,512

  13.1

  658W
  For Devon and Cornwall, from January 1991 to December 2001 post-mortem examinations were carried out on 186 dolphins, 75 per cent. of these were diagnosed as having died of bycatch, and 79 harbour porpoises, 48 per cent. of which were bycaught.

  Mackerel Box Regulations
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with fishing nations which have industrial trawler companies with regard to the(a) appropriate enforcement of mackerel box regulations and (b) level of cetacean by-catch. [35479]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: There have been no recent discussions with other fishing nations about the enforcement of mackerel box regulations. As in previous years the Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron has been tasked by the Department to enforce the EC rules applicable to the mackerel box whether or not vessels are engaged in human consumption or other fisheries. There are no EC rules specifying levels of cetacean bycatch.

  Farm Co-operatives
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm co-operatives there were in each constituency in each year since 1990. [34871]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Information on the number of farm co-operatives in each constituency is not available.

  Woodland
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much woodland there was in(a) absolute and (b) percentage terms in each constituency in each year since 1990. [34870]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: This information is not currently available in the format requested. However, the Forestry Commission carries out woodland surveys by county every 10–15 years. The most recent surveys were conducted between 1979–1982 and 1995–99, and the table shows the findings from each survey.
  659W

  Inventory of Woodland and Trees 1995–99

  Woodland Census 1979–1982

  Region/county

  Land area

  Woodland area (ha)

  Woodland cover (%)

  Land area

  Woodland area (ha)

  Woodland cover (%)

  South-west

  Avon

  133,244

  8,364

  6.3

  134,605

  6,862

  5.1

  Cornwall

  356,466

  26,869

  7.5

  356,422

  18,301

  5.1

  Devon

  670,961

  66,660

  9.9

  671,087

  53,813

  8.0

  Dorset

  265,274

  28,759

  10.8

  265,380

  25,062

  9.4

  Gloucestershire

  265,327

  29,752

  11.2

  264,263

  26,372

  10.0

  Somerset

  345,207

  24,291

  7.0

  345,043

  19,300

  5.6

  Wiltshire

  347,605

  27,325

  7.9

  348,070

  24,839

  7.1

  Region

  2,384,084

  212,021

  8.9

  2,384,870

  174,549

  7.3

  West midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  392,346

  35,668

  9.1

  392,648

  28,757

  7.3

  Shropshire

  348,767

  29,482

  8.5

  349,014

  25,275

  7.2

  Staffordshire

  271,545

  21,175

  7.8

  271,616

  16,936

  6.2

  Warwickshire

  197,854

  9,390

  4.7

  198,053

  6,883

  3.5

  West midlands

  89,874

  2,759

  3.1

  89,942

  1,827

  2.0

  Region

  1,300,386

  98,474

  7.6

  1,301,273

  79,678

  6.1

  East

  Bedfordshire

  123,557

  7,655

  6.2

  123,467

  6,184

  5.0

  Cambridgeshire

  339,963

  12,325

  3.6

  340,901

  6,612

  1.9

  Essex

  367,344

  19,456

  5.3

  367,188

  14,996

  4.1

  Hertfordshire

  163,928

  15,503

  9.5

  163,418

  12,370

  7.6

  Norfolk

  537,234

  52,739

  9.8

  536,823

  42,697

  8.0

  Suffolk

  379,839

  31,435

  8.3

  379,667

  28,211

  7.4

  Region

  1,911,865

  139,112

  7.3

  1,911,464

  111,070

  5.8

  East midlands

  Derbyshire

  262,858

  19,512

  7.4

  263,096

  13,299

  5.1

  Leicestershire

  255,087

  9,660

  3.8

  255,293

  7,741

  3.0

  Lincolnshire

  592,091

  18,903

  3.2

  591,484

  18,774

  3.2

  Northamptonshire

  236,697

  14,498

  6.1

  236,734

  11,909

  5.0

  Nottinghamshire

  215,980

  17,298

  8.0

  216,365

  15,058

  7.0

  Region

  1,562,713

  79,871

  5.1

  1,562,972

  66,781

  4.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Humberside

  350,806

  9,080

  2.6

  351,226

  9,617

  2.7

  North Yorkshire

  839,949

  60,843

  7.3

  830,869

  55,852

  6.7

  South Yorkshire

  155,941

  11,551

  7.4

  156,049

  10,398

  6.7

  West Yorkshire

  203,417

  10,607

  5.2

  203,912

  9,350

  4.6

  Region

  1,541,113

  92,081

  6.0

  1,542,056

  85,217

  5.5

  North-east

  Cleveland

  59,652

  3,790

  6.4

  58,307

  3,361

  5.8

  Durham

  242,907

  15,540

  6.4

  243,591

  13,934

  5.7

  Northumberland

  502,594

  80,645

  16.0

  503,166

  75,770

  15.1

  Tune and Wear

  54,033

  2,892

  5.4

  54,005

  1,690

  3.1

  Region

  859,186

  102,867

  12.0

  859,069

  94,755

  11.0

  North-west

  Cheshire

  233,107

  10,337

  4.4

  232,846

  8,842

  3.8

  Cumbria

  682,333

  64,582

  9.5

  681,015

  54,450

  8.0

  Greater Manchester

  128,584

  4,696

  3.7

  128,674

  2,649

  2.1

  Lancashire

  306,978

  14,078

  4.6

  306,347

  11,477

  3.7

  Merseyside

  65,516

  2,478

  3.8

  65,202

  1,677

  2.6

  Region

  1,416,518

  96,171

  6.8

  1,414,084

  79,095

  5.6

  England

  13,043,370

  1,096,885

  8.4

  13,043,927

  947,688

  7.3

  Note:

  NIWT land area, including inland water, based on digital boundaries used in the 1991 Census of Population

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the names of staff who have been seconded to her Department 660W
  from the private sector since May 1997, indicating (a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and civil service grades within her Department, (c) the organisation responsible for

  661W
  paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35838]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Due to confidentiality I am not able to release the names of the individuals that have been seconded to the Department. Two members of staff have been seconded from the private sector, one from July to December 1999, the other from September 2001 to May 2002. Both were seconded from the BBC at approximately grade seven level and paid by the BBC.

  Energy Efficiency
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to encourage energy efficiency in commercial buildings. [33813]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have set up the Carbon Trust to promote business and public sector energy efficiency and the take-up of low carbon technology. We will be consulting on a CHP strategy shortly to promote this highly energy efficient technology. The climate change levy, and its associated climate change agreements, are also an important spur to business energy efficiency. But there remains a great unrealised potential for energy efficiency and the Department will be considering strategies to further enhance its role in the future.

  BSE
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 905W, whether she can update the House on the measures her Department has taken to trace the offspring of BSE cases. [37486]

  Mr. Morley
  As a result of further checks, it has now become clear that two more offspring of BSE cases have been sold for human consumption, one in December and one in January. Some meat from the latter has been prevented from going into the food chain. These cases are being investigated. Measures are being taken to tighten up procedure and we are considering taking legal action.

  Passports thought to have been held by officials outside animal health divisional offices were in fact returned to owners, enabling the animals to be sold despite the fact restriction notices were properly served on the owners, informing them the animals were not to be sold for human consumption. Consumer protection is provided by the over-30-month rule, the removal of specified risk material and the ban on the feeding of mammalian meat and bone meal to all farm livestock. These measures were applied in these cases.

  Animal Welfare
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for the future of the live animal export trade; and what plans she has for the banning of this trade. [32602]
  662W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government have been consistent in their view that a trade in meat is preferable to the long distance transport of animals for slaughter. It is a matter that will be considered when the European Commission produces its proposals to update and improve the current EU rules on animal welfare during transport. The Government have no powers to introduce a ban on this trade. Judgments by the European Court of Justice have made it quite clear that such a ban would be illegal.

  Pornography
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with newspaper and journal wholesalers who insist on individual newsagents taking pornography with their newspaper orders. [32844]

  Mr. Morley
  None. This is not a matter for this Department.

  Horse Passports
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she intends to implement Commission Decision 2000/68 on horse passports and to ensure that the new system meets the needs of the horse industry. [37280]

  Alun Michael
  We have carefully considered the responses to the consultation exercise carried out on the implementation of Commission Decision 2000/68. Taking account of these views and the need to comply with the terms of the Decision the Government have decided that by 31 December 2003 all horses and ponies must have passports. The Government also intend to introduce a unique identification number for all horses and ponies.

  Owners and keepers of horses and ponies which are not currently registered will be required to register these animals with one of the appropriate approved equine organisations. The owners of these animals and the owners of registered horses and ponies which currently do not have passports, will be required to obtain passports from the approved organisations. We will require that owners of horses and ponies which currently have passports be issued with the new extended passport containing details of veterinary medicines administered.

  Discussions are now taking place with industry organisations about detailed implementation arrangements.

  The Government also consider that it is vital to establish a central database of basic information on horses which could be used for disease control and other purposes and will establish the necessary arrangements following discussion with the horse industry in order to achieve this end with a minimum of bureaucracy and at minimum costs.

  CAP
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how CAP funding is spent in the United Kingdom broken down by(a) types of schemes and (b) nations. [31254]

  Mr. Morley
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 February 2002, c. 896W]: My answer referred to a table entitled

  663W
  "Subsidies Paid Directly to Farmers in 2001". The last two rows of the table showed values for total other subsidies and total subsidies. Unfortunately, these totals

  Subsidies paid directly to farmers in 2001

  £ million

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  UK

  Subsidies on product

  Crop subsidies

  Arable area payments on:

  Wheat

  330

  2

  16

  1

  349

  Barley

  180

  5

  68

  7

  259

  Other cereal crops

  22

  1

  5

  1—

  27

  Oilseed rape

  94

  1—

  9

  1—

  103

  Linseed

  10

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  Peas and beans-stockfeed and human consumption

  67

  1—

  1

  2—

  68

  Other crops

  7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  8

  Other crop subsidies

  3

  2—

  1—

  2—

  3

  Livestock subsidies:

  Beef special premium

  126

  24

  46

  46

  242

  Suckler cow premium

  80

  25

  61

  45

  211

  Slaughter premium

  49

  7

  13

  15

  84

  Extensification payment scheme

  50

  15

  34

  27

  126

  Over-30-months scheme

  91

  17

  23

  26

  157

  Beef national envelope

  11

  3

  8

  5

  26

  Sheep annual premium

  74

  53

  42

  13

  182

  FMD light lambs

  1

  2

  2

  2—

  5

  Other subsidies

  Dairy agrimonetary compensation

  56

  8

  6

  9

  79

  Total subsidies on products

  1,249

  162

  334

  194

  1,940

  Other subsidies

  Set-aside

  162

  1

  20

  1

  184

  Other animal disease compensation

  11

  1

  1—

  16

  29

  Less favoured areas support schemes

  42

  42

  61

  18

  164

  Agri-environment schemes:

  145

  34

  34

  7

  220

  Countryside Stewardship

  49

  2—

  2—

  2—

  49

  Countryside Premium (Scotland)

  2—

  2—

  9

  2—

  9

  Tir Cymen and Tir Gofal

  2—

  13

  2—

  2—

  13

  Organic Farming

  27

  3

  5

  1—

  35

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  48

  7

  10

  5

  71

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas

  3

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3

  Woodland Schemes

  8

  1—

  5

  2

  14

  SSSI3

  9

  2

  5

  2—

  16

  Other

  2

  8

  1—

  1—

  10

  Total other subsidies

  360

  79

  115

  43

  596

  Total subsidies

  1,609

  242

  449

  237

  2,536

  1 Negligible, less than 0.5

  2 Not applicable

  3 Payments for sites of special scientific interest are not part of CAP

WALES

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34396]
  664W
  included some double counting. A new table providing the correct information is annexed. The rest of the answer remains unchanged.

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not readily available.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34168]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The notional cost of the accountancy services provided to the Wales Office by the National Assembly for Wales was £25,000 in 2000–01 and £19,000 in 1999–2000 (for the period July to March). The figure for 2001–02 is not yet available and figures are not available for the former Welsh Office.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Welsh Assembly Government regarding the further devolution of powers to the National Assembly for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32220]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister and other Assembly Ministers regularly to discuss matters of common interest, including the suggestion that animal health powers should be transferred to the Assembly.

  Devolved Functions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues concerning devolving more functions to the National Assembly for Wales. [35711]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my colleagues about a variety of issues, including representations made to me by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in his Department to(a) himself and (b) his fellow Ministers; how frequently and at what expense private courier firms are employed for such a task; and which courier firms have been used for such duties. [36286]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Ministerial boxes originating from this Department are transported to Ministers' homes either by Government car or by a service provided by the Royal Mail.

  Enron
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings Wales Office Ministers have had since 1997 with Enron representatives; and on what dates. [34611]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None since the establishment of the Wales Office in July 1999.

HEALTH

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to amend the Department of Health departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [37368]

  Mr. Milburn
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department of Health, Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £231,363,000 from £50,573,402,000 to £50,804,765,000. This includes a change in the Administration Cost Limit which will decrease by £3,584,000 from £321,935,000 to £318,351,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table.
  666W

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  538,562

  -307,199

  New DEL

  48,872,673

  1,932,092

  Of which voted

  49,364,233

  483,499

  Non-voted

  -491,560

  1,448,593

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the take up of end-year flexibility £120,000,000 for health authority allocations as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5243 published in July 2001. A claim of £30,000,000 on the Reserve for variant CJD compensation. An additional £6,267.000 from HM Treasury as a result of technical adjustments following changes in accounting arrangements for some PFI schemes. A net transfer to the National Assembly of Wales of £2,493,000, £3,683,000 for out-of-area treatment costs, dental service increment for teaching, cross border flows and high security psychiatric services, partially offset by a transfer of £1,190,000 for regional re-costing and post graduate education. Transfers from Northern Ireland totalling £2,030,000, £68,000 for post graduate training, £1,941,000 for out of area treatment costs and £21,000 (of which £7,000 administration costs) for contributions to committees and non-departmental public bodies. Transfer to the Home Office of £1,569,000, £2,767,000 for drug action teams and match funded social care projects, offset by £1,098,000 for costs arising from the Victoria Climbie Inquiry and £100,000 for medium secure units. A net transfer to the Department for Education and Skills of £613,000, comprising of £750,000 for the National Institute of Psychiatry and £100,000 for a learning and development website package, offset by a transfer of £237,000 for the costs of Protection of Children Act tribunal and Care Standards tribunal. Transfer to the Lord Chancellors Department of £164,000, (of which £123,000 administration costs) for Care Standards tribunals and family health services appeals authority recruitment. A transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions of £1,095,000 for the road traffic accidents work of the compensation recovery unit. A transfer from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of £80,000,000, for building care capacity offset by £1,000,000, for the Rough Sleepers Unit.

  The administration cost limit has decreased by £3,584,000 from £321,935,000 to £318,351,000. In addition to the changes detailed above there is an increase of £2,290,000, mainly for education and training and the modernisation agency, offset by £5,758,000, for capitalised in house software developments and other IT software and hardware. The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers and the planned total of public claim on the reserve, and will not therefore add to expenditure.

  Consultants
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 111W, what restrictions on doctors within the non-consultant grades with potential to become consultants he regards as unnecessary; when he plans to remove these restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [16219]
  667W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: In order to be appointed to a consultant post in the national health service, a doctor has to have his or her name included on the specialist register. This register lists the names of those doctors who hold the United Kingdom Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training (CCST) or, for doctors trained overseas, enter the UK already possessing qualifications considered by the specialist training authority of the medical royal colleges (STA) to be equivalent to a CCST. There is no provision, in law, for doctors with specialist medical training, but no formal qualification, to enter the register. Similarly, there is no provision for doctors wishing to 'top-up' their specialist training to the required standard by undertaking further training in the UK then to enter the specialist register.

  We wish to amend these provisions to provide a route to the specialist register through an 'equivalence of training' provision. A doctor would be assessed by the STA to evaluate whether the sum of his or her training and qualifications, wherever obtained, is equivalent to a CCST in his or her specialty in the UK. This will provide a direct, assessed route to the specialist register while ensuring that standards do not slip and that patient safety is not compromised.

  Our aim, subject to consultation and parliamentary approval, is to have the amended legislation in place by summer 2002.

  Approved Hospital Providers (EU)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he has made in relation to liability of approved hospital providers in the EU. [16853]

  Mr. Hutton
  An overseas provider treating a national health service patient pursuant to a contract with an NHS commissioning body will clearly be potentially liable to the patient for any medical negligence. However, although the law is not fully developed in this area, English courts may decide that the NHS body commissioning that treatment was also potentially liable. Commissioners therefore need to seek appropriate indemnities against any claims from foreign providers.

  Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have been(a) disciplined and (b) sacked for (i) drug-taking offences and (ii) stealing NHS medical drugs in each year since 1997. [24300]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Data for the discipline or sacking of nurses involved with drug-taking offences or stealing of national health service medical NHS drugs are not collected centrally but may be held at a local level by employers.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times agency staff were used to fulfil shifts in acute hospitals by(a) authority area and (b) trust presented (i) numerically and (ii) as a proportion of all nurse shifts for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [16396]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, information from the Audit Commissioning report 2001 states that on a typical day about 20,000 bank and agency staff work in national health service trusts, covering 10 per cent. of shifts.

  Solvent Abuse
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths attributed to solvent abuse there have been in each year since 1995. [25448]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics collected by St. George's Medical School show that there were 65 deaths in 1995; 79 in deaths in 1997; 70 deaths in 1998; and 73 deaths in 1999 in the United Kingdom associated with volatile substance abuse (VSA). Deaths in 1999 were less than half the number recorded at their peak in 1990. We take any deaths associated with VSA very seriously and are committed to continuing action to address this problem.

  It is particularly important that young people should know about the dangers of abusing volatile substances. We are supporting a programme that will enable general practitioners and other health care professionals to assist teachers in communicating health messages about the dangers of drugs and other solvents. Other measures to address this issue include a campaign to inform retailers about the risks of volatile substance abuse, and their responsibilities under the law. The Department is also working with voluntary organisations to develop training packages for professionals working with young people at risk of abusing volatile substances.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts have been subject to waiting list spot checks since the publication of the National Audit Office report into irregularities in waiting lists. [27254]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are in active discussion with the Audit Commission on the detailed implementation of spot checks on national health service trusts to ensure that waiting list data are independently verified.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the advertising campaigns which he and his predecessors have commissioned since May 1997, showing for each(a) its objectives, (b) its beginning and end dates, (c) the media used, (d) the criteria adopted to judge its effectiveness, (e) the extent to which the effectiveness criteria were met, (f) agency involvement and (g) its cost; [29665]

  (2) if he will list the advertising campaigns commissioned by (a) his Department and (b) the national health service since May 1997, showing for each (i) its objectives, (ii) its beginning and end dates, (iii) the media used, (iv) the criteria adopted to judge its effectiveness, (v) the extent to which effectiveness criteria were met,(vi) any agency involvement and (vii) its cost. [28235]

  Ms Blears
  Major advertising campaigns commissioned by the Department's communications directorate since May 1997 are shown in the table.
  669W

  £ million

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Antibiotics

  —

  —

  0.17

  —

  0.44

  Blood donation

  0.60

  1.70

  20.22

  —

  —

  CALM

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.05

  Children's services

  —

  —

  —

  0.60

  0.17

  Drugs

  —

  —

  0.34

  —

  —

  Flu

  —

  —

  —

  2.00

  1.45

  Mind out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.13

  National health service including nurse recruitment

  1.30

  4.90

  4.21

  4.90

  4.41

  NHS Direct

  0.12

  0.78

  1.20

  1.15

  1.38

  Organ donation

  —

  0.77

  0.47

  0.38

  0.20

  Prescription fraud

  —

  0.38

  —

  0.18

  —

  Sexual health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  Sexwise/teenage pregnancy

  —

  —

  0.39

  1.5

  2.0

  Social worker recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  Smoking

  —

  —

  36.18

  8.97

  7.24

  Walk-in centers

  —

  —

  —

  0.02

  —

  Winter

  —

  —

  1.07

  2.35

  0.2

  Working family tax credit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.05

  1 Planned (to be updated)

  2 The Department's spend on blood donation advertising reduced in 1999–2000 because most of this activity was funded directly by the National Blood Authority, who took over full responsibility for this expenditure on 1 April 2000.

  3 Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the Health Education Authority (HEA).

  Information about NHS expenditure is collected centrally and published annually in the Health and Personal Social Statistics for England.

  Lymington Hospital
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients are waiting for(a) hearing tests and (b) other audiology treatment at the Lymington hospital; [27746]

  (2) how many patients have been waiting for (a) less than one year, (b) more than one year and (c) more than two years for a hearing test at the Lymington hospital at the latest available date; [27747]

  (3) what the waiting time is for a hearing test at the Lymington hospital. [27748]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The data requested are not collected centrally.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33211]

  Ms Blears
  Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out. Secondments and attachments are part of the interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: voluntary, education, health, public and private.

  Centrally held records in the Department show that there have been no secondments between the Department and the companies asked about.

  NHS Dentistry (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Birkenhead constituency are taking national health service patients; and how many were taking patients five years ago. [32851]

  Ms Blears
  At present in Birkenhead (excluding Woodchurch and Upton wards), there are 15 practices taking national health service patients (13 general dental surgeons (GDS) and two orthodontic specialists) with a total of 30 dentists working from these practices. Five years ago, for the same area, there were 15 practices (14 GDS and one orthodontic specialist).

  Hospital Television Viewing
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of pay-to-view television for patients in(a) the James Paget hospital in Gorlston, Norfolk and (b) other NHS hospitals; and whether NHS hospitals are permitted to cease provision of free-to-air television. [33595]

  Ms Blears
  National Health Service Estates has worked with staff in trusts, and potential suppliers to set up a national licensing system that allows suppliers, who have demonstrated that they have the capacity to install and effectively manage a bedside communication and entertainment system, to provide the service in NHS hospitals.

  The suppliers are responsible for all aspects of installation, managing and running the service and for any associated costs. They make a charge to the patient for use of the services provided. The trust does not bear any of the cost of either the installation or running of the service.

  Patients at the James Paget hospital will have the choice of pay-to-view television at their bedside or free television viewing in the hospital day rooms. NHS Estates specified to trusts and suppliers, at the outset, that access to the free televisions in communal rooms and payphone telephones

  671W
  would not cease to exist as a result of the introduction of the bedside services. These will remain an alternative for patients who do not wish to use bedside services.

  Professor James Malone-Lee
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what contact there has been between his Department and Professor James Malone-Lee since 1 January; [33496]

  (2) pursuant to the oral statement of 23 January 2002, Official Report, column 880W, what involvement Professor Malone-Lee had in the drafting of the letter from the Whittington hospital read out by the Prime Minister. [33630]

  Mr. Hutton
  Department of Health officials routinely discuss management issues with staff at national health service trusts. However, there was no contact with Professor James Malone-Lee, the medical director of the Whittington hospital, in order to discuss the Evening Standard letter. The letter that appeared in the Evening Standard, read out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 January 2002, Official Report, column 880, is the property of the Whittington hospital NHS trust.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions there were between Government press officers and trust managers and medical directors of the Whittington hospital between 16 and 23 January; and whether the Medical Director's statement was(a) shown to, (b) amended by and (c) discussed with Government press officers. [31140]

  Mr. Hutton
  Departmental officials routinely discuss management issues with staff at national health service trusts. These discussions can from time to time include issues that have been reported in the news media. Between 16 and 23 January, department of health press officers, as well as other officials, discussed with the trust's chief executive, but not its medical director, several stories that had appeared about the Whittington hospital in the Evening Standard. When it became clear that the staff at the Whittington had responded to these stories by writing to that newspaper, the Department's press office asked for a copy of their letter. At no time was the Department's press office's approval of, or assistance with, that letter either sought or offered; and nor was there any discussion between Departmental officials and the medical director of the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust about any of his public statements about media reporting of the trust.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) of 24 January Ref 31140 regarding the Whittington hospital. [35543]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer to the hon. Member to my previous answer.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage participation by his Department in fair trade fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33541]

  Ms Blears
  The Department have yet to receive an invitation to this event, whether as a group of delegates or as exhibitors.

  Generally, national health service trusts are approached directly by the organisations that run these ventures and it is for them to decide whether to attend.

  The Department for International Development is providing £120,000 to the Fair Trade Foundation over three years (2001–03) in support of its efforts to target new groups through the annual Fairtrade Fortnight campaigns. My hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will be attending the launch of this year's campaign on 4 March 2002.

  It Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total expenditure of his Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been(a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33677]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's total information technology spend for financial years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1998–1999

  23.5

  1999–2000

  23.0

  2000–01

  22.9

  There is no readily accessible information for financial year 1997–98 and material for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Information on the other aspects of the question is not available in an easily accessible form and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Consultancy Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33850]
  673W
  Ms Blears
  The Department does not centrally hold a record of individual contracts. However our financial records show the following total payments made by the Department and its agencies to(a) PWC Consulting

  £

  Fiscal year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (a) PWC Consulting

  143,711

  196,890

  244,670

  1,052,892

  308,364

  (b) Ernst and Young

  26,230

  18,234

  58,603

  71,200

  66,677

  (c) Deloitte and Touche

  72,350

  45,445

  11,084

  60,614

  342,730

  (d) KPMG

  331,712

  166,943

  546,453

  267,981

  1,202,720

  (e) Andersen

  51,547

  77,226

  70,000

  71,774

  70,000

  Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NHS Estates to put forward proposed terms to the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association for the acquisition of the site adjoining St. Ebba's Hospital. [32652]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The district valuer has been instructed to act on behalf of National Health Service Estates/the Secretary of State for Health in this matter. Negotiations with the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association are on-going and it is understood that the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association are currently considering an offer which has been made to them.

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the information about the number of people living within 20 minutes drive prepared by the DTLR and presented to the management team of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust as part of its strategic review in 2000–01. [33707]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The management team of Epsom and St. Helier national health service trust are unaware of any submissions by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in response to the strategy document "Investing in Excellence".

  The management consultancy SECTA, however, was commissioned by Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust to conduct some further work on site option development. Although a report was never produced a presentation was made on the work in progress to the trust at an executive team awayday in February 2001. Details of the presentation have been placed in the Library.

  Probiotics
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of prescription of probiotics by the NHS was in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [33967]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally on which, if any, of the products, which have been prescribed, contain or are composed of probiotics.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department plans to encourage the prescribing of probiotics; and if he will make as statement. [33966]
  674W
  PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services by fiscal year since April 1997:

  Ms Blears
  We have no plans to do so.

  Health Authority Expenditure (Dorset and Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the expenditure by weighted head by health authorities and primary care trusts is different in Dorset health authority from that in Somerset health authority; and if he will make a statement. [32560]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Expenditure per weighted head cannot be reliably compared between different health authorities and primary care trusts. Somerset health authority had no primary care trusts in 2000–01 and Dorset health authority had four primary care trusts.

  In many health authorities there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include: the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission health care or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; asset revaluations in national health service trusts being funded through health authorities; and some double counting of expenditure between health authorities and primary care trusts within the health authority area.

  In the case of Dorset and Somerset health authorities, all the above factors occur which distort the expenditure per weighted head of population.

  Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in a considerable element of double counting in Dorset where the health authority acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by the primary care trusts. The effect of this double counting cannot be identified exactly from the accounts.

  "The Bulletin"
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the leaflet "The Bulletin" issued to general practitioners has cost since its inception. [34140]

  Mr. Hutton
  Currently the GP Bulletin is circulated to all general practitioners in England. Around 50 per cent. of GPs receive "The Bulletin" electronically, the remainder receive it by hard copy distribution.
  675W
  Since its inception the Department has issued seven editions of "The Bulletin", each edition costing around £43,768 (value added tax inclusive). The cost will vary slightly with size.

  The Department is conscious of the cost of hard copy distribution. Future editions will be circulated electronically, reducing the cost of distribution approximately to £21,000 (VAT inclusive).

  Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a right of appeal for a patient against a decision made by an internal NHS inquiry following a complaint against a medical practitioner; and if he will make a statement. [34142]

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): District nurses employed within health authority areas within the north-west regional office area and per 100,000 population as at 30 September 2001

  Whole-time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Headcount

  Per 100,000 population

  North-west total

  1,610

  20

  1,960

  30

  QC1 South Lancashire HA

  80

  20

  90

  30

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  120

  30

  150

  30

  QC3 Manchester HA

  120

  30

  140

  30

  QC4 Morecambe Bay HA

  70

  20

  80

  30

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  50

  10

  50

  10

  QC6 Salford and Trafford HA

  100

  20

  120

  30

  QC7 Sefton HA

  50

  20

  70

  20

  QC8 Stockport HA

  110

  40

  150

  50

  QC9 West Pennine HA

  110

  20

  130

  30

  QCT Bury and Rochdale HA

  110

  30

  140

  30

  QCV North Cheshire HA

  130

  40

  150

  50

  QCW South Cheshire HA

  130

  20

  180

  30

  QCX East Lancashire HA

  150

  30

  190

  40

  QCY North West Lancashire HA

  90

  20

  100

  20

  QDA Wigan and Bolton HA

  140

  20

  160

  30

  QDC Wirral HA

  50

  20

  60

  20

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trends in waiting times in accident and emergency units since 1997. [34861]

  Ms Blears
  We are committed to reducing waiting times in accident and emergency departments. The NHS Plan set the target to reduce the maximum wait in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004.

  Over 12-hour trolley waits have been reduced by over 50 per cent. since 1999 and over 24-hour waits have been virtually eliminated. The NHS is on track to meet the four-hour target, currently 77 per cent. of all accident and emergency attenders spend four hours or less in accident and emergency.

  Negligence Claims
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated to meet medical negligence claims in 2002–03. [35239]
  676W
  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service complaints procedure already contains an independent review element if a complainant is not happy with the initial response to their complaint at local resolution. A complainant also has the option of complaining to the health service ombudsman if they are not happy with the response of the NHS to their complaint.

  District Nurses
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district nurses there are per head of population in each health authority in the north-west. [34075]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Ms Blears
  The budget allocated for clinical negligence for 2002–03 is £403.276 million.

  This can be found in the Health Authorities Revenue Resource Limits Exposition book, which was published in December 2001, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for a first appointment with a consultant at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford, Essex in June(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [34851]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for numbers of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for a first appointment for Mid Essex Hospital Services national health service trust is shown in the table.

  Separate figures for Broomfield hospital are unavailable.
  677W

  Total number Total number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an
  out-patients appointment

  Month

  Number

  June 1999

  3,284

  June 2000

  3,212

  June 2001

  2,146

  Source: QM08 quarterly return waiting times collection.

  Patient Deaths (Hospital Transfers)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died(a) in transfer between hospitals and (b) in NHS transport to hospital in the last year for which information is available, broken down by (i) the health authority responsible for the transport involved, (ii) the length of journey by distance, (iii) the condition for which treatment was to be provided and (iv) the type of transport involved. [34764]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  NHS Direct Nurse Advisers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) nature and (b) length is of the specialist training for NHS Direct nurse advisers on (i) self-harm and (ii) suicide. [35497]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: All NHS direct nurse advisers are qualified nurses with several years of front-line experience. They receive a supplementary three-day intensive programme of training to develop their competence in the identification of mental health problems over the telephone which includes assessment of risk of self-harm or suicide. In addition, they are given on-site supervision by a senior mental health nurse; they utilise an interactive CD Rom based training package designed to enhance their general knowledge and understanding of mental health issues, and they attend regular refresher courses.

  Community Hospitals (Kent)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of outpatients from the Kent and Canterbury hospital are being treated in community hospitals; [35400]

  (2) what proportion of outpatients from the East Kent health authority area are being treated at the Faversham Cottage hospital; [35398]

  (3) what proportion of outpatients in the East Kent health authority area are being treated in community hospitals. [35399]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled at the Eastbourne District General Hospital in each of the last 60 months for which figures are available. [36243]
  678W
  Ms Blears
  Data on cancelled operations were not collected by National Health Service Trust prior to this year (2001–02). The information is available only for quarters and the figures for Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust are shown in the table.

  Last minute cancelled operations for non clinical reasons at Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trusts—2001–02 Quarter 1 and 2

  Quarter

  Last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons

  1

  63

  2

  85

  Source:

  D of H forms—QMNG

  Data on cancelled operations were previously provided at health authority level. That information is available in the Library.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 2000–01 annual report of the Commission for Health Improvement will be published. [37197]

  Ms Hutton
  The combined annual report and accounts "Holding a mirror up to ourselves" is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire which was acknowledged on 7 December, reference P0000821. [36040]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 13 February.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 3 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J Titterington; [14369]

  (2) further to his holding reply, if he will explain the reason for his delay in replying to the letter to him dated 3 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J. Titterington. [16245]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend's letter of 3 October regarding his constituent Mr. Titterington on 19 November. I apologises for the delay in replying to my right hon. Friend's letter. The initial draft reply did require amendments and there was also a need to liaise with the Home Office due to the subject area.

  Nurse Accommodation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the extra units of nurse accommodation for London nurses set out in the NHS plan are(a) single bedroom units, (b) two bedroom units and (c) houseshare units; and how many (i) are new units and (ii) have been completed. [34882]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since publication of the NHS Plan in July 2000, 803 extra units of new and refurbished rental accommodation have been made available in London. The new accommodation comprises of 687 single rooms,
  679w
  42 double rooms and 10 studios in clusters of up to six rooms. There are also 64 units in one, two and three bedroom refurbished flats.

  We are aware of a demand for, and look to provide, flexible accommodation which can enable both single and family type of accommodation to be provided. The target of providing 2,000 extra units in London within three years of the NHS Plan is expected to be achieved.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances in England were leased in 2000–01; what estimates he made of the number of ambulances in England that will have been leased during 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [35848]
  680W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Government Legal Advisers
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proportion of directly employed Government legal advisers have had previous specialist experience of contract law in private practice. [32905]

  The Solicitor-General
  Government lawyers are recruited from all fields. They include those who have experience of contract law in private practice. However, such information is not collated and the proportions required could be found only involving a disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Ednuoulsbury and Ipswich.

Road/Rail Bridge Safety Barriers
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What modifications have been made to road approaches to rail bridges since the accident at Great Heck on 21st February 2001.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, following the accident at Great Heck, the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Highways Agency to review its standards for nearside safety barriers on major roads. The report will be published very shortly. Decisions on any actions to improve safety at particular locations are best taken by the relevant highway authority and rail infrastructure provider in the light of the findings of this report.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, can the Minister give the reasons for the report being delayed? According to a reply on 16th July last year by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it was originally promised for last autumn. Will he confirm that the Government regard it as completely unacceptable that railway services and lines should be put in danger because of traffic on motorways over which the railway service has no control? Can he give an assurance that, rather than arbitrary standards being applied, each particular bridge over a railway line will be looked at individually to make certain that the kind of incident which took place at Great Heck could not happen again simply because the barrier was not long enough?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we do not have long to wait for the reports, which will be published by the end of February. Once we have the reports before us, we shall be able to have a fuller debate. I can confirm that the Government's commitment to security on the railways is absolute and very strong, hence the clear action taken by the Deputy Prime Minister a year ago. Under the circumstances and given the weight of the issues and the width of the two inquiries that have been under way, I do not think that we have seen a particularly slow reaction. I accept that we wish to do all that is practicable to reduce deaths in such circumstances. However, they were very unusual circumstances indeed. Therefore one would expect to see a proper risk assessment process carried out by the relevant highway authorities and rail infrastructure provider.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, over 1,600 accidents in which lorries hit bridges were reported over the past year. Of those. 31 were considered potentially serious. What action are the Government taking? All that has
1178
happened so far is that a map has been published by the AA and lorry drivers are allowed to put a notice in their cabs. However, no real action has been taken to prevent these potentially very serious accidents.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, incidents in which lorries hit bridges are an important and serious issue, but the issue is slightly wider in scope than the Question on which we are focused today, which essentially is the risk of vehicles coming off the highway and going on to railways. Without too much wishing to trade statistics with the noble Lord, the number of vehicles driven accidentally off the highway on to the railways is relatively small. The figure is higher than we would wish but amounts to only 12 a year. Of those 12 only one incident resulted in a train hitting the vehicle. As I am sure that the reports will say, one has to keep a sense of proportion when considering what is the best and most effective action to take.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State seems to have learnt nothing from last year? Is he further aware that the spin doctor in the transport department planned to release,
"less than encouraging statistics on rail safety and punctuality",
tomorrow, but was prevented by Martin Sixsmith, the senior press officer of the department? Can the Minister give an assurance today that those statistics relating to safety, which is the subject of the Question on the Order Paper, will be released as a Statement given by the Minister to the House and that no further attempts will be made to bury had news?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, given the width of matters that could have been raised on the important issue of rail safety, I am slightly surprised that the noble Viscount has chosen this particular angle, which is essentially a very party political one. With regard to my right honourable friend in another place, I think that he knew a great deal a year ago and I am sure that, like all Members of both Houses, he is learning even more as time passes.I am delighted to say that I know nothing of the issue to which the noble Viscount has referred. I am therefore not in a position to give an answer.

Swanwick Air Traffic Control
11.12 a.m.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the transfer of national air traffic control services to Swanwick has been successful.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am pleased to say that on 27th January the Swanwick centre in Hampshire, which is one of the most advanced air traffic control centres in the world, began successful operations.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would he be prepared to tell the House whether that successful transfer is in any way

1179
threatened by the reported financial situation at NATS? It has been reported that the banks have threatened to withdraw their support if the Government do not guarantee the company's position. Furthermore, NATS itself has been reported as having given warning of its possible financial collapse if it cannot raise very substantially its own charges; to say nothing of further reports about the need to modernise the NATS computer systems such a short time after the opening of the new centre. Is not this a matter on which the House should be advised, if only to allay those worries?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can state categorically that there is no threat to safety or air traffic security as a result of the challenge that has been posed to NATS in the light of the tragic circumstances of 11th September. As one would expect, the volume of air traffic has reduced consequent on the 11th September tragedy. We do not know for how long that reduction in traffic will persist. There clearly is a challenge to the board and shareholders of NATS to ensure that their investment plans in the future can be sustained at the level that they would wish. All shareholders, with the Government—who of course are shareholders—are working well and positively to address that issue by a variety of means. I can assure the noble Lord that he should not believe everything that is written in the papers on this matter.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for not giving him advance notice of this question. Can he tell the House what is happening at Prestwick? The project has apparently been postponed because of what happened on 11 th September, but, as air traffic is expected to increase, would it not be highly dangerous not to proceed with Prestwick? As the passage of the Bill on NATS was contingent on Prestwick going ahead, will that promise be kept?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the implication that I always get advance notice of any supplementary question from the Benches behind me. I hope that all noble Lords will pay attention to that because it would be most helpful. In practice, the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy for air traffic control is still strongly in place. We believe that it is right and necessary. Quite clearly there has been a reduction in air traffic volumes and there is not the same level of urgency for the second centre to be brought on-stream immediately. Nevertheless, some of the preparatory work is going ahead at present. Site works and piling are under way and a new radar processing system is currently being installed. We expect that, in good time, the second centre, at Prestwick, will be opened.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, has there been any increase in capacity as a result of the transfer of the London control centre to Swanwick? If not, when does the Minister expect that increase in capacity to arise?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there has been a very substantial increase in capacity. As I signalled, this is one of the most advanced air traffic control systems in the world, which, as far as we can predict, should make it possible to cope with traffic growth for the next 30 years. Over the past few weeks there has been a sensible process of progressive implementation of the system to ensure that air traffic controllers are fully conversant with the new systems and the new environment and have confidence in them before volumes are raised to the full level. So far, it is going extremely well.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend define what he has said a little more? He said that Prestwick would be available "in good time". What does he mean by that? When will work start there? Will he be a little more specific than he was in the debate on the air traffic control system? Will my noble friend take it from me that the work that has been done at Swanwick is admirable? It places British air traffic control in a very good situation.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend both for his question and his comment on Swanwick. It has been a success. We shall not go over the delays and the implementation challenges, but now that it is up and running it is an excellent centre. One must commend all those involved in bringing it on-stream and into operation. As to Prestwick, the position is basically clear. As I signalled in an earlier answer, work is progressing although not at the full level. The original plan was that it would come on-stream about 2007 or 2008. There may be a couple of years delay, but there is clearly no immediate operational need for the full centre. However, our commitment to it remains firm.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the part-privatisation of NATS was largely debt financed, which has left it with a highly leveraged balance sheet? As the Government currently hold a 49 per cent stake in the National Air Traffic Service, do they agree with its proposal that it should raise its charges by an average of 5 per cent a year for the next three years?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the level of charges that NATS is entitled to impose is not a matter for me or for the Government. The cap is set by the Civil Aviation Authority rather than by the Government. In this circumstance, one would expect that a company of this kind would be looking at all options to see whether it could reduce expenditure, increase income and strengthen its equity. No doubt those are some of the issues being considered.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has said, is it not a fact that there have been increased delays in air traffic since the transfer to Swanwick? On two occasions recently, I have been delayed for more than two hours and the blame has been firmly put on Swanwick rather than on anyone else.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as is the tradition of the House, one always expresses deep regret that any noble Lord has been delayed for any reason whatever. The statistics I have show that there were in the very early days some delays as a result of settling-in the new systems. But the figures I have been given are that the average delay per flight is now three-and-a-half minutes compared to an average before the switch to Swanwick of two minutes. Clearly that is a movement in the wrong direction, but it is hardly of great significance. I mentioned previously that there has been progressive implementation. The centre is not being loaded fully at this stage. It is being governed back so that air traffic controllers have plenty of time to get used to the systems. That is what is causing the slight delays. We can be confident that these will be eradicated relatively rapidly.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of NATS. Does the Minister agree that any delays related to Swanwick that are currently being experienced were built into the planning process for the introduction of the new system? Secondly, will he join me in commending all those involved in devising and introducing what is probably one of the most complex systems in Europe? It is equally important to recognise that the transfer of this system from its former establishments to Swanwick was one of the most complex arrangements that could have been undertaken. Will the Minister also take note that, in the current year, charges in the UK have gone down, while charges elsewhere in Europe, particularly following the events of 11 th September, have increased substantially?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, I agree that the reason for the delays is essentially that an extremely prudent approach was taken to bringing the new centre on-stream. I signalled that point earlier, although I did not put it quite as explicitly. Judgments were made that the centre would process only a certain amount of traffic at any one time in an attempt to ensure that there was not an excessive load on air traffic controllers. That has led to very slight delays. It is a highly prudent way of bringing such a system on-stream. The staff and management are to be commended; so far, the process has gone extremely well. Let us trust that it continues to do so. With regard to charges, the current formula by which NATS is governed is a cap of RPI-minus X—it is slightly complicated—whereas in Germany and elsewhere this year charge increases of 10 per cent or more have been imposed.
Lord Burnham: My Lords—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it must be the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, surely the Government must be interested in the fact, even though they cannot influence it, that—as the noble
1182
Viscount, Lord Astor, has reminded us—the plan for a progressive reduction in charges by annual amounts of 4 and 5 per cent over several years has now been abandoned by NATS in favour of a planned increase in charges over the same period.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government are interested in the situation in a number of ways—as a shareholder, and as a government with an overarching concern regarding these issues. The reality is that, while air traffic volumes are down, the revenues to NATS—whether or not it is in a PPP— will also be down. In a worsening situation in terms of income, there are only two options: either income charges. go up, or other forms of funding are introduced. There is a strong argument that the costs of air travel should he borne by the users rather than more generally. There is certainly a debate to be had with the CAA—and I am sure that NATS will put the case—about the need to reconsider the level of the cap.

Tourism
11.23 a.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are planning to do to help the tourism industry in Great Britain, given the 16 per cent reduction in foreign tourists visiting Great Britain in 2001.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government are investing £65 million in tourism this year—more than ever before. This is justified because the number of overseas visitors arriving on holiday in the UK in 2001 was down by 14 per cent on the figure for 2000. In January, the British Tourist Authority launched its new £5 million campaign to help tourism recover from the events of 2001. The campaign will promote special offers provided by over 1,000 tourism businesses.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will she consider boosting the £5 million now allocated to the "UK is OK" campaign in order to encourage tourists from several of the world's wealthiest countries to return to this country? considerable government support has gone to the farming industry, and rightly so. Will my noble friend recognise that the tourism and hospitality industries have an equal claim to attention and finance?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the British Tourist Authority along with the industry has made a bid to the Government for a contribution to its plans for a major tourism recovery programme this year. The Government are currently considering their response. We are, however, encouraging the BTA and its partners to attempt to maximise the industry contribution.

1183
In reply to my noble friend's second question, the Government committed an extra £14.5 million to the recovery campaign. Any extra funding will depend on genuinely additional contributions from the industry.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, when will the Government give some long-term help to the tourism industry by doing something about their two year-old promise to reform our licensing laws? Is the Minister aware that her honourable friend the Minister for Tourism in the other place revealed this month that every year of delay on this matter is costing the hospitality industry £1.9 billion?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware of the extra cost to the industry. To reform the licensing industry it is necessary to introduce new legislation and the Government are considering that. I cannot at this stage give an indication as to when it is likely to be brought in.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question on the Order Paper draws attention to a problem not far removed from that affecting the film industry; namely, that American companies are not now coming to Britain to film, as we would expect, but are going to places such as Prague? One of the main reasons is that it is increasingly expensive to maintain large groups of people here because of the cost of hotels and restaurants. The same applies to tourists. Overall, the costs in this country are exorbitant. Can the Government do something about it?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government cannot run the private sector. It is a matter for hotels and restaurants to price the services that they offer competitively. The Government can encourage the hotel industry, restaurants and other parts of the tourism industry to do just that. But in the end it is up to them to compete successfully with similar parts of the industry in other countries.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, is the noble Baroness in a position to say what percentage of the figure she quoted will go to towards those of us involved in tourism in Scotland?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I cannot give that answer. I shall see whether one of my colleagues from the Scotland Office is able to provide it.
Lord Paul: My Lords, although I commend what the Government are doing for the tourism industry, manufacturing industry is in much deeper trouble and has been for a much longer period. I declare an interest as someone who is in the manufacturing industry. Why are the Government neglecting this industry?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that his question really does fall outside the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve the ability of disabled visitors to
1184
travel to the United Kingdom easily? I understand that some of the arrangements at airports and ports are particularly difficult.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, this is a matter for the industry—both for the airlines and for the British Airports Authority. They have to be responsive to the legislation relating to disability in the same way as every other area of our national life has to be responsive to it.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, does my noble friend consider that prices and charges in London deter people from visiting not only London but the rest of the country? In view of that, would it be possible for regional and provincial tourist boards to be engaged in more aggressive and positive advertising in order to persuade people that, if they will not come to London, they can enjoy themselves in other parts of the country such as the Yorkshire Dales?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a matter for the industry, not only in London but throughout the country, to try to market its products aggressively and to price its services competitively, as I said earlier. The British Tourist Authority is trying to overcome strong price resistance in its latest campaign, featuring a range of new offers, which the Government very much hope will be successful in bringing more people to the UK.

NHS Hospital Beds
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that the proposed transfer of "bed blockers" from National Health Service hospitals to rural bed-and-breakfast accommodation will be in the patients' interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the department has no involvement with this matter. The countryside development unit of Harper Adams University College for agriculture commissioned a feasibility study into the use of rural bed-and-breakfast establishments for the recuperation of patients who do not need to be in hospital for their care. I understand that the college has not embarked on any discussions with NHS bodies in the area.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister's Answer disconcerts me even more than the newspaper article did. That article said:
"The aim is to fill spare holiday accommodation during traditionally quiet periods".

1185
The Member of Parliament who represents the area where the first pilot study scheme is to take place said:
"it will help the bed and breakfast sector in rural Britain which has had such a tough year with the foot-and-mouth outbreak".
I am worried that the patients and their health interests may not be the prime concern. I understand that bed-and-breakfast accommodation means the provision of bed and breakfast. How can anyone recover with just bed and breakfast? It must turn into the virtual equivalent of a care home providing at least full care. Very often, people who are discharged from hospital require follow-up visits from physiotherapists or others and even their relatives need to be able to visit. It is essential that the National Health Service becomes involved if the scheme is meant to represent intermediate care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my experience is that bed-and-breakfast establishments in Shropshire are splendid and of course one would want to encourage members of the public to use them. However, that is not the intent of the National Health Service or the Department of Health. As I have said, this was purely a speculative study by a local college, carried out without any discussion or agreement with the National Health Service. The chairman of the BMA's community care committee said that about the only case that he could imagine in which it might work would be a young man who had perhaps broken a leg and needed somewhere to recuperate after leaving hospital. Otherwise, he said, it is a complete non-runner.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, first I declare an interest as the unpaid chairman of the ExtraCare Charitable Trust retirement village appeal in Warrington. Has my noble friend visited one of those admirable villages? If riot, will he do so? The standard of life of their inhabitants means that there is less pressure and less need for them to have NHS beds. Will he also examine whether any ways can be found to enable ExtraCare to build more of those wonderful villages?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a dangerous precedent to accept visits offered in that way, but, seeing as the offer comes from my noble friend, I shall be very interested in visiting the proposed village community in Warrington. I am aware of the extraordinarily good work that such villages do. Experience shows that people who live in such communities make fewer pressure demands on the National Health Service because of the care and support that they already receive. It is one of the many ways in which we can provide effective care and support to older people.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in her evidence to the Health Committee yesterday, the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate expressed serious concerns about the possible use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, as proposed in the report? Will he assure the House that no such arrangements will be allowed to proceed without the chief inspector's agreement?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is for local authorities and local NHS authorities to decide where intermediate care or care for people who are seeking discharge from hospital ought to be provided. I think that I have already made it clear that I find it very unlikely indeed that the bed-and-breakfast proposal could be a serious runner.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, this is a matter of grave concern to us all. The Minister did not answer my question about how many patients were involved when I asked him on 28th January. Will he at least agree that the number of patients delayed last year was roughly equivalent in days lost to the number of cancelled operations in the same year? Is the Minister encouraging other acute hospitals to follow the example of Birmingham City Hospital, which is reducing the delay in the discharge of patients by planning that discharge from the moment the patient arrives in hospital, or the good example of the East Sussex living at home programme, which removes patients from hospital and rehabilitates them for independent living?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the City Hospital in Birmingham is an excellent hospital that has much to teach others. I have made it clear that the proposal in question came from a rural agricultural college, which was seeking to help the rural economy in Shropshire. The National Health Service and the Department of Health have had no discussions with the college and taken no part in the feasibility study. I cannot make myself clearer on that.
According to the latest figures, which relate to September, 6 per cent of acute beds in the health service are being used by patients who ought to be out of the hospital. However, the action that is being taken and the extra money that was put in this winter to help local authorities provide better support and care in the community are having an effect. It is also worth pointing out that delayed discharges for patients over 75 have steadily dropped since 1997. The figure of 15.7 per cent in September 1997 has dropped to 12 per cent. We know that we have much further to go, but I believe that health and local authorities are working well together to deal with the issue.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
11.37 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I shall give a 30-second translation of the Motion, which has been agreed with the usual channels. The only effective change is to take Part 3 of the Bill after Part 4. We shall deal with Part 1, on the Secretary of State's powers, and Part 2, on complaints, and then move to Part 4, which covers police powers for civilians. We shall then take Part 3 along with Pans 5. 6 and 7. I understand that four days have been

1187
allocated for consideration in Committee. This is not a timetable Motion. The change is suggested for the convenience of the House.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Police Reform Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1 to 8,
Schedule 1,
Clause 9,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 10 to 13,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 14 to 27,
Clause 33,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 34 and 35,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 36 to 42,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 43 to 55,
Clauses 28 to 32,
Clauses 56 to 78,
Schedules 7 and 8,
Clause 79.—(Lord Rooker).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitution Committee
11.38 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, before I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short statement.
On Tuesday this week, the Offices Committee met to discuss a report presented to it by a small working group, which I chaired, containing proposals for the reform of the House's domestic committee structure. The Offices Committee considered that it would be right to give Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to comment on the proposals before coming to its final decision. Accordingly, an interim Offices Committee report is being published today, incorporating the report of the working group as an annex and inviting Members to make their views known to me in writing. A copy will be sent to every Member of the House and additional copies are now available in the Printed Paper Office. The Offices Committee will meet again in mid-April to discuss the results of the consultation and decide on the way forward. Any proposals emerging from that meeting will, of course, be subject to the agreement of the House as a whole.
Turning to the Constitution Committee, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Defence (Grant) Bill
11.39 a.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is essentially a Money Bill. As such, it replaces Section 3 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 and maintains the link between civil defence and peacetime emergency planning, by including reference to the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986. The overall effect of the Bill will be to enable Government to return to the practices that existed until a couple of years ago. That was when a loophole was uncovered in the existing legislation and the Government accepted that they would be acting illegally by cash limiting civil defence grant.
Local authorities are provided with civil defence grant under the Civil Defence Act 1948. That ensures that they have the funds necessary to carry out their civil defence duties—that is, to plan a defensive response to hostile attack. The Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 provided for local authorities to use their civil defence resources for peacetime emergencies.
For many years, the Government distributed grant according to a formula. However, in the summer of 2000, the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority challenged the Government's ability to cash limit this grant. The authority obtained leave to move, but refrained from further action on the understanding that its application for more than its formula allocation would be reconsidered. The matter was settled out of court.
That left the Government in the unenviable position of being unable to budget and manage civil defence grant properly. Instead of the Government being able to allocate grant according to a formula, we had moved to a demand-led system. So from a grant level of £14 million in 2000–01, costs rose to an estimated £18.6 million this year. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, in another place, has decided to retain grant at this level in view of recent events. However, the pressure is on for costs to increase further if this Bill is not enacted. For instance, the Local Government Association and the Emergency Planning Society both estimate that emergency planning should be funded to a sum of between £35 million and £70 million—an increase of 88 and 275 per cent respectively. My honourable friend in another place is, rightly, not convinced that that very substantial increase in the level of this particular grant is justified at present.
The question of funding should, however, be seen in the wider context. The Bill provides for how local authorities in England and Wales will be funded to carry out their emergency planning. It is estimated that approximately £18.6 million will be spent this year. However, that is just a small part of what the Government are spending overall on preparation for emergencies. Large sums are being spent on frontline emergency services: more than £9,000 million for the police, £775 million for the ambulance service and

1189
£1,650 million for the fire service. We should also include funds for other work such as flood defences, which has a budget this year of £377 million. Many local authorities also provide funds from their SSA allocation to their individual emergency planning services, which the Local Government Association estimates to be approximately £9.9 million in England this year.
So this Bill relates only to a small, but not insignificant, part of the Government's total funding for response to disasters and emergencies; namely, the Government's support of emergency planning officers working in local authorities in England and Wales. The Government know that we need to spend money in those important areas. I should like to express our appreciation to all those involved in preparation and response to emergencies for their commitment and hard work in making the UK a safer place for us all to live and work in. They give us the reassurance when faced with disaster that things will not be as bad as they would have been without them.
Much has happened recently in the world of emergency planning. We have been subject to a series of unexpected events—flooding, fuel distribution crisis, foot and mouth, and 11 th September and all its subsequent fallout. The Government had already recognised the importance of preparing a response to such unlooked for incidents by conducting a comprehensive, wide-ranging review of the emergency planning arrangements in England and Wales.
This review was announced in December 2000, and the public consultation period took place from August to October 2001. The Government are currently considering the implementation of the recommendations of the review. It has been the most comprehensive review of emergency arrangements in this country for years. It has also resulted in much valuable information and feedback which will inform the Government's next steps.
One of the two proposals in the review, which met with almost total approval, was to introduce new emergency planning legislation. It was widely recognised by respondents that the current legislation, which this Bill amends, is anachronistic and needs to be replaced, However, that is not something that can be done overnight. We need carefully to consider the review findings and how best they can be implemented and legislated for.
Last autumn, in the aftermath of 11th September, the Government briefly considered rushing through emergency planning legislation, but we rightly concluded that that really required further consideration and reflection in the cold light of day. It is human nature to focus on the last battle fought, as it were, rather than the whole war. We need to ensure that new legislation is broad enough to cope with every eventuality, not just an 11th September.
The Bill, therefore, is not the Government's last word in emergency planning. It is a Bill that will bridge the gap between the exposure of a financial legal loophole in existing legislation, and the introduction of fully rounded modern emergency planning
1190
legislation. Your Lordships might ask why we should bother. The answer is simple: we currently have a situation which is demand led, in which the costs could spiral year on year if the Bill—which will enable costs to be contained within Government-set budgets—is not enacted. It is an essential measure to contain costs in the period between a financial loophole in current legislation being exposed and new, modern emergency planning legislation being introduced. We are not ready to bring in fresh emergency planning Legislation; we need to take full stock of the consultation to ensure that we fully consider all of its different aspects. We also need to ensure that we do not just bring in legislation to deal with the last major event: we need wide-ranging, all-embracing legislation that will encompass all eventualities, both anticipated and unanticipated.
The Bill enables the Government to regain control of funding for emergency planning. It enables us to return to the situation pertaining a couple of years ago, when we had a set budget for emergency planning and allocated the grant according to a formula. That is the essence of this Bill. At present, we are in a situation in which we are unable to cash limit grant. Local authorities can therefore bid for whatever they want, and the Government have to give it to them. We would like to be able to stand here and say that local authorities can have all the money that they would like, but we must live in the real world. We have budgets and we have limited resources. The Government do not have bottomless pockets. Therefore, we must ensure that the Bill is passed through this House.
The Bill is a short, two-clause measure. The first clause is in two parts. The first part replaces Section 3 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 in so far as it applies to local authorities in England and Wales. This enables grant payments to be made under primary legislation, rather than under secondary legislation, by regulation. The second part of Clause 1 maintains the link between the Civil Defence Act and the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, ensuring that civil defence resources can continue to be used for peacetime emergencies.
The details are as follows. New Section 3(1) confers on the designated Minister a grant-making function as regards every authority which has civil defence responsibilities. Section 3(2) requires that the Minister determines the aggregate amount of grant each financial year and the amounts of grant for each authority. It also requires the Minister to publish those amounts and the formula and other criteria used to determine them. Section 3(3) allows the Minister to use different criteria in relation to different authorities, and to vary individual determinations.
New Section 3(A) allows the Minister to pay discretionary grant to any authority with civil defence functions. New Section 3(B) provides for the Minister to determine when grant is paid, allowing, for example, for payment by instalments and for payments not to be restricted to the financial year for which the grant is made. This section further

1191
allows for payment of grant to be conditional and provides for the recovery of any over-payment of grant.
The second part of Clause 1 is a consequential drafting amendment that was introduced by the Government in the House of Commons. It ensures continued linkage between the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, whereby grant paid under this Bill, rather than by regulation, can also be used for peacetime purposes, as well as civil defence.
The second clause deals with the title, starting date and territorial coverage of this measure. Clause 2(1) sets the title by which the Act shall be known. Clause 2(2) determines the financial year of its introduction—that being 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2003—and its application to subsequent financial years. Clause 2(3) provides for the Act to extend to England and Wales but not to Northern Ireland. Those provisions allow the Government to return to the practices that existed, and with which most authorities were broadly content, before the Merseyside judicial challenge.
As I have indicated already, the Bill is not the Government's final word on emergency planning. It should be seen in the context of current outdated legislation and of anticipated modern emergency planning legislation, which we in government intend to introduce in Parliament at the earliest opportunity, when parliamentary time and competing priorities permit. We are committed to ensuring that emergency planning is set on a surer foundation and a more certain statutory basis.
I look forward to the Bill's consideration in your Lordships' House and to further comprehensive emergency planning legislation. In the mean time, we need to ensure that this Bill proceeds to Royal Assent, so that emergency planning can be funded coherently and consistently across England and Wales from the next financial year. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. (Lord Bassatn of Brighton.)
11.51 a.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this is of course a money Bill and noble Lords have no power to change its contents. However, I remind noble Lords of the reasons why my party opposed the Bill in another place and voted against it. The first and probably paramount reason is that the proposal to cut back on civil contingencies spending is not appropriate in light of the events of September 11th. My party is opposed to capping and, arguably, to reducing the money available for civil defence.
The Home Secretary laid great stress on the need to be prepared for all eventualities, terrorist or otherwise. The move to restrict funding for civil defence is incongruous with other areas of current government policy. The Minister said that we are awaiting further information on legislation relating to civil defence, following an extensive review process. Many organisations expressed their desire to see legislation
1192
in other key areas pertaining to civil defence, and reform of the civil defence grant cannot be viewed as the highest legislative priority at this time.
The Bill presented the Opposition in another place with the first opportunity to vote on a matter relating to civil contingencies, following last year's floods. It was felt that at that time the Government failed to provide adequate support to local authorities, which were left to cope with the devastation that was caused by flooding in their areas. This capping of their grant will leave those local authorities all the more vulnerable.
The Minister referred to the announcement by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, that this year's level will be £18.6 million. That contrasts with the figure of £70 million, which was mentioned by the Minister and which was suggested in a letter from the Emergency Planning Society. Did Mr Leslie's response to a Written Question, which appeared five days after the letter was written, take account of that letter and, in light of that, are the Government minded to increase the level of grant?
Finally, I refer noble Lords to a survey of local authority emergency planning authorities, which was carried out on 23rd and 24th January of this year by my honourable friend Mr Tim Collins, who is shadow Minister to the Cabinet Office. Of the 31 county emergency planning officers who were surveyed, 29 affirmed that the funding they received from central government was inadequate and did not allow them to provide the service that they should and which the public deserve. Some expressed dissatisfaction in light of the petrol crisis and the foot and mouth epidemic, which some of them had only just survived. Should a further major emergency arise, they simply would not have the capacity to deal with it. They variously described themselves as "grossly under-funded" and in "an abysmal state". They pointed to the continuing cuts with which they have been faced over the past decade, and the incompatibility of those cuts with the ever-increasing expectations that are placed on them. Many of the respondents referred to the startling reductions that they would be forced to introduce. Moreover, 100 per cent of respondents reported that they had received no further funding from central government in the aftermath of the events of September 11th. Seven of them said that no guidance whatever had been received after that event. In only one case was local authority guidance relating to the events of September 11th said to have been received.
The Minister said that the Government would like to give local government all that is required but there has been a serious lack of communication between central government and local government over this issue. With the transfer of responsibilities from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office, I hope that that will improve.
We have no power to change this Bill, but I hope that the Government will bear these real concerns in mind when they bring forward further legislation on civil defence, which I gather is in hand.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, as has been said, this is a money Bill over which this House has relatively little power. My first reaction to it is to suggest that the main theme of our debate might be that whatever the pressure on the legislative timetable, time is always found for legislation to reassert Treasury control. This piece of legislation will do just that, in view of the loophole that was discovered.
As has been said, in view of recent events it is clear that the Bill has to be seen as part of the wider picture of our proper planning for civil defence. Apart from the question of further legislation, to which I shall refer in a moment, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will watch very carefully the demands arid requirements of civil defence planning, and that if it is necessary to increase the £18 million figure to which he referred appropriate adjustments will be made. We should have a heavy responsibility on us if we had not made appropriate plans and a serious disaster occurred.
I should be grateful for more information on the Government's plans for further comprehensive legislation. Although that should not be done too quickly, it should be done in reasonable time. What opportunity is there within the Government's legislative programme for us to consider that Bill during this Session? If there is no such opportunity, would it he possible for this House to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny on that Bill? If we did that, it might be possible to proceed with the substantive legislation a good deal more quickly during the next legislative Session.
As I say, this is a Bill to reassert Treasury control and therefore not one on which this House can comment.
11.58 a.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Bill.
I gently remind the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that we have paid close attention to the needs and pressures in the emergency planning field, which have been assessed by local authorities. There has been consultation, and my honourable friend in another place had meetings with the Local Government Association and the Emergency Planning Society last October. I believe that in late November he spoke directly to the lead councillor responsible for those matters.
Most of the concerns that noble Lords expressed were not about the Bill—we all agree that this is a money Bill that establishes the proper processes and procedures for the allocation of funds—but about the level of grant. The noble Viscount drew attention to my point about the survey. Views about the level of appropriate spending in any field of government will vary. I am greatly impressed that the noble Viscount thinks that the amount of money should be increased—that is exactly what the Government have done. Over the past year, effectively there will have been a 28 per cent increase compared with the amount
1194
of money from central government only two years ago. That is why we were happy to confirm that we would provide funding to the tune of £18.6 million for the next financial year. That is a significant rise in both real and cost terms.
Prior years had seen the level of grant settle at around £14 million. I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House will recognise that the level of funding is not unreasonable, given, in particular, that we have moved on from the days of the Cold War. Of course, we have had to take some account of the events of 11 th September. In that context, I believe that the review of emergency planning started in the previous year has been most useful.
As I said earlier, I cannot be precise about when new legislation will be brought forward. After all, that legislation will be the fruit of consultation. I consider that to be proper because we want to ensure that we are in tune with the wishes and needs of the emergency planning services and in tune with the pressures as seen at local level.
We shall consult and shall continue to consult. We want to get the matter right. We recognise that the world has changed since 11 th September, and a substantial increase has been made in the level of emergency planning funding. As I said, there will always be disagreement as to what that level should be. But the review is well under way and I trust that we shall have legislation which is fit for the purpose and which will take us forward.
I hope that those comments have answered the points raised by noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
12.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord McNally: My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, we on these Benches have supported the Question that the Bill do now pass. However. I do not believe that I should let it go without making two points. First, we on these Benches remain concerned that a series of Bills has been produced in relation to football which chips away at civil liberties. The civil liberties anxieties remain and should be the concern of a wider audience. Football cannot rely on legislators to continue to apply sticking plasters to its problems when those sticking plasters involve a reduction in basic civil liberties.
My second point is that the Bill is one of a series over the past 10 to 15 years which Parliament has had to address to the problems of football. Football is not

1195
only a business; it is our national game, our national flag carrier. Those who involve themselves in professional football must take wider responsibilities. During the passage of the Bill, we have seen at all levels directors, managers and professional players conduct themselves to a standard that does not represent a role model for our national game. I do not believe that we should let the Bill pass without putting on record that we expect football to put its own house in order at all levels. It now has a national regulator, and we shall have to see how powerful that regulator is.
I also hope that the Government keep in place the committee set up under the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. That committee initially considered the problems of football disorder and what could be done about it. The disease in our national game is not cured, and it is certainly not cured by this Bill. I believe that we should give a fair warning to football that it must put its house in order; that the Government will keep behaviour under review; and that we expect football clubs to show wider social responsibility and wider concern in the communities in which they exist. Only in that context should we allow the Bill to pass. Yet again, Parliament has had to come to the aid of football when many of the cures could have come from within football itself.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I speak in the context of the Bill which enjoyed all-party support for the amendments proposed and passed in Committee. I very much take on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in relation to the interference with civil liberties. We must be aware of those. But it is also worth remembering that the first test of the Bill came in the game between England and Germany at Munich. I believe that it can be said to have justified itself in that match. I also very much echo the noble Lord's hope that the committee under the chairmanship of the Minister will be kept in being.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, tempting though it is to respond to comments made by noble Lords, I shall simply thank them very much for their support throughout the passage of the Bill. The legislation was successful in dealing with the events to which noble Lords have referred and in the run-up to the match against Holland last night. There were only 12 arrests, which is very welcome.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
12.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extension of amnesty period]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have brought back this amendment on Report. I say at the outset that, unfamiliar as I am nowadays with having a half term, it does not seem to be an appropriate moment at which to hold a major debate or press for a Division in your Lordships' House. Therefore, we—at least, I—shall not divide on the amendment today.
I still believe that the message I attempted to give to the Government in Committee stands. Many parts of the Bill concern the message that we are sending out to Ireland. Since the Committee stage, many things have happened, as they always do, inside and outside Northern Ireland. But on this occasion it has been in the United States. Mr McGuinness has been speaking in the United States, as have most parties, about where they are going.
Sinn Fein/IRA is clearly looking for respectability—more respectability as they see it; I see it as some respectability—before the elections in the Irish Republic take place shortly. Mr McGuinness has even admitted publicly—not for the first time—that he was a terrorist. But he is now a respectable citizen; he is a Minister in one of Her Majesty's Governments.
That is all positive in the light of devolution of power and the continuation of the peace process. But, in my opinion, it is all for nothing if we cannot get law and order back into that little Province. One of the keys to doing so is to bring about decommissioning: to get the weapons and arms of all parties and all terrorists out of the system and out of the country. Seriously urgent measures need to be taken by Her Majesty's Government, and statements need to be made.
The way I read it, at present the American Government are stronger and harder on the Real IRA and various factions of the IRA—frankly, I do not believe that they are any different to one another—than Her Majesty's Government. I fail to understand why Her Majesty's Government cannot send a much tougher, stronger message stating: "This must happen. We shall make it happen by a certain time and within the power of this Government". I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, those of us in this House who have pressed for confining the renewal of the disqualification Bill to a period of one year have been vindicated, to a great extent, by recent events. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has drawn attention to various visits paid by people from this part of the world to America. I believe that the most significant one was that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr Reid. It has been reported by reputable bodies in the press that Dr Reid held talks with Robert Mueller, the Director of the FBI. That is significant. During those talks Dr Reid offered support to the United States for what they termed the next stages of the war against terrorism. That brings us some pleasure.
Both men would have been aware of the glaring contradictions inherent in Britain's firm attitude to terrorism abroad and British grovelling to a variety of terrorists in a part of the United Kingdom. It is

1197
significant that Dr Reid, with his responsibility for Northern Ireland, should be consulting with the head of the FBI on what they call "the next stages". Obviously, they both feel that there is more to come. It is prudent that they should be making determined efforts to have steps in place for when that comes.
This morning on the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Hoon, made a statement which will presumably be repeated. That is the way it is nowadays. The Minister makes a statement at eight o'clock in the morning which is later repeated in both Houses of Parliament as an afterthought. However, we have become accustomed to that. Who am I to complain? His statement today dealt with what the Americans call "home base defence measures". Mr Hoon spoke about the possibility of using the Territorial Army and other defence organisations to deal with certain problems within the United Kingdom.
Another startling statement was made by the Ministry of Defence on the "Today" programme, which was, I suppose, an exclusive, in discussing the possibilities of utilising mercenary bodies to ease the strain and remove overstretch in the Armed Forces. Clearly consideration must be given to the implications of all that for decommissioning or, as I prefer to call it, the disarmament of all forces in possession of weapons.
Looking further ahead, the whole question of amnesty must be reconsidered in the light of the above announcements. Clearly, an amnesty must be all-embracing. It must extend, for example, to former RUC members, members of other Crown forces and, indeed, to Crown servants, if necessary. The joyful part of that for the British taxpayer must be the implied elimination of all public inquiries, which cost literally millions of pounds. Obviously, self-perpetuating commissions, ombudsmen and ombudswomen will be rendered obsolete by the introduction of what might be called, and were called in my time, "irregular forces". I firmly believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must be given time to consider the impact of all the fresh thinking, both on his part, on that of the FBI and now by the Ministry of Defence, speaking from its position of authority. Although we may need to renew this legislation, such renewal should be restricted to one year, for the solid reasons provided by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Bill. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is not pressing for a Division because we would not be able to support him. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux, that efforts to continue with decommissioning are really not affected by the order. As I said in Committee, the most effective force for good in decommissioning lies with the American administration rather than in London or Dublin. For that reason, we support the Bill unamended.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I support the amendment, for the reasons that I have cited before but shall cite again, mercilessly. The issue here is that a message needs to be sent to the people in the little streets of Northern Ireland. For them, this is a simple issue: are the Government serious about protecting them?
There was a little decommissioning last October. However, as I remember the Belfast agreement, decommissioning was supposed to cover every aspect of violence, including the guns on the streets. Here we are talking only about what will happen to arms in dumps. Precious little has happened and I suspect that precious little will happen. However, there is another aspect. I come back to an issue which I have raised before in this House. The paramilitaries on all sides—not only the IRA—are becoming more and more overweening in their power to exile people from their own country, depriving them of a basic human right, and nothing is being done.
The committee which discussed relocation after intimidation received a response from the Government to its modest proposal that there might be some sort of focal point for organising help for such people when they arrive in this country, distressed, lost and frightened, with no money, no work and no house. Some local councils leave them on the streets and do nothing for them. They are treated worse than any asylum seeker. All that is being suggested is a focal point which understands their needs. In that response the Government state:
"The Government is satisfied that the support necessary for victims of intimidation resettling in Great Britain is in place".
It is not, or that committee would not have made that recommendation. The Government make a remarkable comment, which I hope does not apply to their thinking on decommissioning generally:
"Formalising the development of policy and the co-ordination of support activities, as the Committee advocates, would risk sending a signal to paramilitaries that, by working to alleviate the consequences of their actions, the Government was tacitly allowing them to continue with impunity".
That is the most extraordinarily cynical and disgraceful reason for saying that they will do nothing.
I return to the fact that people are becoming more and more anxious, beleaguered and unloved. No one seems to care about them. I think that a simple message would be better than nothing. It would show that we are concerned about them and about the continuation of violence. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider, not only in supporting the amendment in due course—I hope that we shall return to it again—but above all in realising that the Belfast agreement interlocked a number of issues. Each one was supposed to depend upon the other. However, it has become completely distorted. We have put in place largely the measures wanted by Sinn Fein. We have not put in place the balancing act which was implied, and which the Prime Minister implied in his speech of 14th April.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I listen regularly to Radio Ulster. Last week I listened every morning, and every morning without fail Radio Ulster reported that another series of knee-cappings had been carried out by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. That happened every single day. It was the same the week before that. No doubt next week it will be the same.
Paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are using their arms to intimidate individuals, districts and communities and to bend them to their will. The message to them from this legislation is that they will be able to hold on to their arms until 2007. They shall be able to carry on knee-capping and all that goes with it and the Government will not do anything about it.
I have yet to hear of anyone being brought before the court charged with knee-capping or of a paramilitary being charged with the mutilation of an individual. They know that that will not happen because those people who are mutilated, who have been knee-capped and/or who have been intimidated out of their country—the exiles referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—will not say anything.
I have just attended a meeting at the other side of this building which concerned a barman in Derry who did not agree with one of the customers who was becoming very obstreperous. The barman ordered him out of the pub. The person ordered out was a member of or had friends in the republican movement. The next day masked men with balaclavas came to the barman's house and ordered him out of the country.
Does that not show the power that is now being wielded by some of the greatest thugs that have every walked the streets of Northern Ireland? This legislation is saying that they can continue to do that until 2007.
I asked last week—and I do not want to go into this again in any great detail—whether the Government have made any representations to those in control of paramilitary organisations. Again I do not restrict my remarks to the IRA; the loyalists are also exiling people from their homeland. The loyalists also carry out knee-capping and mutilations every day of the week. What can the Government do because those who are mutilated by the loyalists do not go to the police? The IRA argument, when challenged on this, is: "We have to do this. We are acting as policemen because there is not an acceptable police force in Northern Ireland". That is what they say. So they are asking permission to continue with these mutilations for another five years on the grounds that they are the only acceptable police force in those communities in Northern Ireland.
I said to the Minister last week: "By the way, standing as I do in this House, having the experience which I have had in Northern Ireland, and having had my own home burned out in Northern Ireland by the so-called republican paramilitaries, I could quite easily sit here and say nothing. I could stay away from these debates because when I do take part in them I get a lot of anonymous threatening letters from paramilitary organisations". It is mostly from the republicans because I have questioned their activities in this House.
1200
"But I believe that when coming to this House and taking the Oath of Allegiance at the Dispatch Box I gave an oath that I would talk on all the issues that are relevant to the security of the United Kingdom". I am doing so now because Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom.
Many of Northern Ireland's citizens are being brutally intimidated by paramilitary organisations—Mafia organisations. This legislation, as it stands, is saying to them that they can continue to do this until 2007. On the other hand, we know—and I refer to it again at the risk of repeating myself—that there will be an amnesty granted to republican prisoners who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland. The Government are going to grant them an amnesty so that they can come back to Northern Ireland. I was speaking to a policeman last week in Belfast. He told me that one of those who will gain from this amnesty he knew for a fact had killed three of his RUC colleagues. Just imagine how difficult it will be for that policeman to see the murderer of his colleagues granted an amnesty by the British Government because of some deal that they are doing with paramilitary organisations.
I have suggested that if we are to get anything out of this—and I do not believe that we are—the Government should say to the paramilitary organisations: "Before we let your people come back into Northern Ireland from the Republic, we insist that all those who have been exiled by paramilitary organisations are allowed to come back home and live in Northern Ireland". At least we should get something in return.
I refer again to the choreography. We were told that the Government make one move and Sinn Fein or the IRA or the loyalists make a move in the other direction. They have not. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in effect says, "We realise that we cannot defeat the Government because they will get their way in the legislation, but at least restrict the activities of the paramilitary organisations to one year rather than to five years". I do not believe that that is an outlandish request to make.I appeal to the Government to take on board what has been said by noble Lords in this House about the existing situation in Northern Ireland where fear and intimidation exists to a large extent throughout communities and to tell those who they must be negotiating with in relation to this legislation that they will have to give something back in return.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I intervened in Committee after the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he told the House that the guns were silent. I cited the paramilitaries' actions against the rest of the community about which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just been speaking. I emphasise that it is either side of the community; it is not the community simply on one side. I quoted data from the evidence section of the report by the Select Committee in another place in the last Parliament on the paramilitaries sending their fellow citizens into

1201
exile. That data reflected the increase in shootings after the second ceasefire by comparison with a fairly modest number of shootings after the first.
By unfortunate irony, the other place is debating that report in Westminster Hall at 2.30 this afternoon, once this debate is likely to have been concluded. The Government did not reply to that report published in May of last year until December. The Minister's reply to the debate this afternoon is therefore the first real opportunity for the Government to be cross-examined on their position on the issue and on the report.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will recall that my noble friend Lady Park's debate on this subject in this House coincided with the news of the decommissioning by the IRA. Therefore, he did not have excessive time on that occasion to respond to the specific points made by my noble friend. I make no criticism of that. The coincidence was one which in part determined the debate.
The Times on 8th February brought the figures up-to-date in terms of last year in an article which may have reflected the case mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord. Lord Fitt. In that article the RUC' had reported that there were 331 punishment beatings and shootings in Northern Ireland last year, which is the highest figure in 30 years of conflict. The Times also cited statistics brought forward by Base Two, the body that underlies NIACRO, which also gave evidence as regards the report that I have alluded to. That indicated that there were 906 threats last year by paramilitaries to their fellow citizens in the community. I acknowledge immediately that the first 300 of those were by republicans and at least 500 were by loyalists. I am not suggesting in any way that it is all on one side of the community. However, those 906 threats included 50 death threats and 650 of what are perhaps not wholly felicitously referred to as 'exile orders".
I understood the response of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to my noble friend's amendment in Committee, which was of a similar nature to the one he is moving today. It meant that, beyond peradventure, the letter of the law in terms of what the noble and learned Lord said is on the side of the Government. But there are occasions when the spirit of the law requires reinforcement in order to send a message from Parliament in instances of this sort. Therefore I continue unreservedly to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, of course the level of paramilitary violence, kneecappings and so on is quite unacceptable. Of course decommissioning must happen; but frankly I am not persuaded that the difference between 2005 and 2007 will make the paramilitaries say, "Ho, Ho! Parliament is more determined than we thought it was". I do not believe that the difference between the two is the real issue, in terms of whether the paramilitaries will respond or not.
In any case, as I understand it, the provisions have to be renewed a year at a time so that there is still the possibility—the inevitability—that Parliament will
1202
from year to year pronounce on the continuation of these measures. Even if the IRA were to decommission today we would still need this legislation on the statute book until 2007, I believe, because both the Real IRA and some of the loyalist organisations have not been disposed even to consider decommissioning up to now.
At least from the IRA we have had one major act of decommissioning—not a minor one—which I believe to be of enormous significance. I hope that I may, just for the record, disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. She suggested, as she does every time she speaks, that all the concessions are one-way and that Sinn Fein/IRA have made no concessions at all. I have no truck with violence from anyone, but perhaps I might remind her that Sinn Fein are members of a devolved parliamentary institution within the United Kingdom, that two of them are Ministers and that they have accepted the principle of consent that there will be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the will of the majority of its people.
That is an enormous concession by them, given their previous position. I think that it should be remembered, before we believe that the Government are simply making concessions to one side and not to the other. Of course decommissioning has to happen but I believe that it will happen through argument, pressure and persuasion, not by means of a technicality on our statute book.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that everyone who has spoken is motivated by a genuine desire for improvement in Northern Ireland. and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as always. He took the view, which I entirely respect, that a Thursday morning with a small House is not the moment to test the opinion of the House. He was scrupulous in discussing this with me before we began.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for what he said about Dr Reid. On his visit to the United States he made the important point that if there is to be financial and other assistance from the United States community it ought to go evenhandedly also to the Protestant sections of the Northern Ireland population. It seems to me—and I do not say this because I am a Member of the same Government—that he is showing himself, as every week passes, to be a very considerable Secretary of State indeed.
I am grateful for the scrupulous support of the Liberal Democrats, as always in the context of Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has referred on a number of occasions to those who are sent away from their homes. She never exaggerates the problem and, without commitment, I shall look again in detail at what she said.
The noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Brooke, have recent facts behind them. The citation given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right: 331 people were the victims of paramilitary shootings and assaults

1203
in 2001; 17 persons were murdered. There were 344 bombings and 350 shootings. Of course it is not right to say that the authorities are powerless. Later this morning I shall ask your Lordships to extend the additional powers in the context of Northern Ireland which are required for a further year. In the context of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Fitt, 635 people were arrested in 2001 either for terrorist activity or serious public disorder offences. I do not think that it is right for me not to include those figures in a tribute to the continuing work of the police service in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is quite right. What this Bill does is to extend what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called, attractively and accurately, the possessory immunity provisions for one year. It extends the provisions for one year, and there is the possibility—but no more—of further extensions, subject to the annual positive approval of this House. Therefore the difference between us is whether or not a possible further series of extensions should run for two years or for five years. For the reasons already set out by the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Dubs, I think that five years is appropriate.
That does not mean that there is no obligation on people to surrender arms before that. Indeed, if anyone is arrested in possession of arms in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the United Kingdom, and they are not able to bring themselves within this possessory immunity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called it, they are committing criminal offences and are liable to be charged, are capable of being charged, and are charged with serious offences.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, does not wish to put the matter to the vote on this occasion although he may well revert to that when we meet on Third Reading. I believe that we are right to set this five-year period. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, that was the letter of the law on the first scheme and it is suitable—though perhaps regrettable—as an aspect of this further extension.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have joined in this debate again. I believe that it is right for us to continue to pressurise Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to attain decommissioning, and there are different ways of doing that. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his reasoned and careful response, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Contracting Out (Functions in relation to Apsley House) Order 2002
12.38 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are here to debate whether the functions now vested in the Secretary of State under certain sections of the 1947 Wellington Museum Act may be exercised on her behalf. I am satisfied that the draft order now before your Lordships is compatible with convention rights.
There are two functions which under these proposals would be contracted out. The first concerns the maintenance and use of part of Apsley House as a museum, commemorating the first Duke of Wellington and his time. The museum may be used for government entertainment or, with the consent of the Duke, for other public purposes. The second is about the maintenance of the fabric of the house.
The responsibility for the running of the museum has been carried out since 1947 by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Responsibility for the fabric has rested with the DCMS and its predecessors. Your Lordships may appreciate being reminded of the historical background to these proposals. Apsley House was given to the Government by the seventh Duke of Wellington, the father of the current Duke, in 1947. Under the terms of the Wellington Museum Act, the Duke and his family retain rights to live in the private apartments of the house and the Duke retains rights to give his consent to events held in the public rooms. We do not propose that any of those rights held by the family should be changed by the current proposals, but we have reached the conclusion that it no longer makes practical sense to have separate management arrangements for such functions. We have decided that the time has come for unification.
Over the years, the department and its predecessors have been competent stewards of the historic fabric. There has been considerable government investment to ensure that this Grade I listed building remains in good shape. In addition to the day-to-day maintenance, a considerable programme of capital work has been funded. Last year more than £200,000 was spent in a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof. My department has also programmed over £700,000 for future work to the Waterloo and central roofs. Any new body will be funded to continue those works.
Apsley House is an important part of the landmark buildings at Hyde Park Corner and fully complements the now refurbished Wellington Arch directly opposite. But Apsley House is the last historic property for which we retain responsibility. The decision was taken as part of the far-reaching comprehensive spending review in 1998 to withdraw from other responsibilities of that kind, such as Marble Arch and Trafalgar Square. It is inefficient to retain specialist contractors for just one property.
Over the years the V & A has done an excellent job. Under its management the Wellington Museum won the Small Attraction of the Year award in 2001. The total number of visitors increased by 37 per cent between 1998–99 and 2000–01 to around 60,000 people. The director of the V & A has said that running an historic house is not a priority for the V & A at present. A change in management of the Wellington Museum, therefore, provides an opportunity for a new focus and direction.
One particularly noteworthy innovation from the V&A that we intend should remain is the emphasis on education. The education programme at the Wellington Museum ranged from formal learning for children and higher and further education students to informal programmes for children, adults and families. Especially popular are the workshops for schoolchildren that have been developed to be uniquely suited to Apsley House and the Wellington Museum, such as the Downstairs Diary, a living history programme of servant life in the Victorian age.
The informal programme includes events such as specialist talks, relating directly to the Duke of Wellington, his life, his times, his magnificent collection, story-telling and art activities for children, and family learning weekends organised in conjunction with the Westminster adult education service, which have attracted an ethnically diverse group of families from north Westminster. We would expect any new management to build on that and that that will be a condition of any contract.
We shall also require the new management to retain the principle of free admission to the museum for children. However, the proposal is that the Wellington Museum should not be classified as a national museum under the new arrangement. Therefore, we shall not require the full range of free access policies to apply. The new operator must have scope to decide on the charging policy if that makes overall operational and business sense. That has been the case in other operations where the Government have put in an independent operator in charge of historic properties; for example, at Somerset House and at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich.
Overall, we would expect the existing visitor experience at least to be maintained, and if possible, enhanced. One possibility is that the new management could establish a relationship with the Wellesley family that would allow more artefacts associated with the life of the first Duke to be exhibited. At present, there is much material at Stratfield Saye in Hampshire that could find a much wider audience if it were made available in London. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the death of the first Duke, that is an exciting prospect.
We see considerable advantage in market-testing ideas for unified management of the building and the museum. The contracting out order now before your Lordships provides us with an opportunity to gauge just what that interest may be. Such interest may come from established heritage operations or from other quarters. We would expect to let a contract in the first instance for five years. The successful bidder would be funded by the department, initially at existing levels of investment, but we expect that a new operator will be able to generate other sources of support, perhaps through sponsorship and increased levels of corporate and other events in the museum.
On all fronts, we believe that the time is right for change. Of course, change is unsettling for many of those directly involved. It is fundamental to our thinking that the position of existing staff in the
1206
Wellington Museum should be protected, whatever new management arrangements are put in place. Discussions have already begun between the department and the V & A. If your Lordships agree the proposal now before the House, we shall consult the staff and the unions together with potential bidders. Where staff transfer to the new management we shall follow the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector so that the rights of those employed at the Wellington Museum will be fully protected.
We see real gains all round from the proposal now before the House. The V & A will be relieved of a responsibility that no longer fits with its primary business purpose. The department will relinquish its direct responsibility. The visitor will suffer no reduction and may indeed stand to gain from a richer experience. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
12.47 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords. I support the making of the order, but I have some questions for the Minister. The order is so unspecific as to the implications of what will happen when it is passed, that although the Minister has given the House some information, I feel that it is important to ask the Government to put on the record details where it is reasonable to do so. As ever, my questions are thoroughly reasonable!They cover the following four issues: funding; the process of transfer to a new organisation; accountability post transfer; and access and exhibits.
On funding, I raise two matters: repairs and maintenance. The Minister has referred to the fact that last year more than £200,000 was spent on a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof and that the DCMS has programmed more than £700,000 for future works to the Waterloo and central roofs. She has given an assurance to the House that the Government will fund any new body to continue those works that have already been identified. That is most welcome.
What will happen if there is an over-run in the cost of those projected improvements? If the costs go up unexpectedly, who will bear the increase in those costs? If there is a dispute as to the cause of the over-run in the budget, who will act as the arbiter? In other words, who will pay?
On maintenance, can the Minister give the House an estimate of the current annual cost of day-to-day maintenance that she mentioned? She said that the Government will fund the successful bidder initially at existing levels of investment. How long does she mean by "initially"? Will that be for one year only. or will the period be longer than that? Will the funding that is transferred to the new managing body be deducted directly from the V & A budget?
I note that the Minister referred to the TUPE practice. I welcome her remarks in that regard. That practice will mean that the rights of those employed at

1207
the Wellington Museum will be protected. I want to ask a question about pensions which I appreciate is technical. However, I was able to give the Minister somewhat limited advance notice this morning of these questions. Can she tell the House what the position will be with regard to pensions? I refer to those that are currently claimed by past employees of the museum—those who have already retired—and those that will be claimed in the future when existing employees retire once they have transferred to the new organisation? Will the new body be responsible for funding those pensions, or will they be paid by government?
I pass to the second issue, which comes under the heading of process of transfer. The Minister referred to putting out the transfer to bidders. We hope, as the Government say, that there will be wide-ranging interest. How long does the Minister expect the market-testing process to take? We all wish the handover to be as painless as possible. Do the Government have a target date for the handover to the new managing body?
Last December, I tabled a Written Question on the order. In her Answer, the Minister said that the Government expected that expressions of interest would be sought through an advertisement and that tenders would then be invited. On 6th February, when the order was considered in another place, Dr Howells, the Minister there, seemed to think that a number of bidders were already in the wings, waiting to take centre stage. Is that the case? Have the Government to date received any informal indications of any person or organisation who may be prepared to enter the bidding process? If so, can the Minister say who they are? What plans have the Government made to judge which tender should be accepted, if there is more than one, and if there is only one, whether it is acceptable? What principles will guide their decision?
Does the Minister agree that the people who may best understand the collection—including the parts that have not yet been exhibited—include members of the family? Will the family be involved in the running of the organisation that will take over the management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum?
I turn to the issue of accountability after the handover to the new organisation. What kind of accountability will follow that transfer? To whom will the managing body be accountable and how will that accountability be exercised? The Minister said that the contract is expected to last for five years in the first instance. I hope that this would never happen, but if the Government were by any stretch of the imagination to be dissatisfied with the management of the museum and Apsley House, could that contract be terminated before the end of five years, or is there any other practical step that the Government could take if they felt that the arrangement was simply not working?
Finally, I turn to the issue of access and exhibits. The matters that I have covered so far are of importance to public finance and accountability, but so far as the general public are concerned, the real test of success of the change to be brought about under the order is simple: when they visit the museum, they want an even
1208
better experience than they currently have. I recently visited Apsley House as a paying member of the public and thoroughly enjoyed my visit. I can well understand why it won the London Tourist Board's attraction of the year award last year.
I welcome the Minister's remark about the continuation of the valuable education programme—that it should be a condition of the contract of the new managing body to build on that experience. I also welcome her pragmatic comments about free access. I appreciate her making clear that we should leave those who know best—in this case, the new operators—to get on with making commonsense decisions about where free access should be available and where charging might be appropriate. I am delighted that the noble Baroness was able to build on the remarks about access and exhibits made by the Minister in another place. In so doing, she has made it easier for the House to agree to the order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I represented the then Department of National Heritage at the Dispatch Box, I took advantage of my position to pay a thorough visit to Apsley House, which I absolutely loved, especially the pictures. I had no idea that through sheer good fortune it had amassed such a fine collection. I am sorry that the Victoria and Albert Museum, with its great expertise, is giving up responsibility, but I suppose that I understand the reason why.
The noble Baroness mentioned that items may be brought from Strafield Saye to Apsley House. I have no idea to whom those items belong. Do they belong to the family or to the general public? I think that there are more than enough things to see in Apsley House as it stands. It would be a pity if it were cluttered, rather than giving one a little lebensraum as one goes round. I should like to know about the items from Strafield Saye, which is also well worth a visit.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister's presentation was interesting and encouraging. I have great confidence following it and, on behalf of these Benches, I am sure that in implementing the order the Government will be sensitive and appropriate to the historical importance of Apsley House and its importance as a tourist site, among other things.
In my youth—I think I was only 22—I worked for a genealogical publication and had to research the Wellesley family. I got in touch with the seventh Duke, who had presented Apsley House in 1947. He kindly invited me to lunch, which was a daunting experience for a 22 year-old. I have never been invited to any meal by a Duke since. Young people nowadays may be rather surprised that one was daunted by such an experience, but in those days a Duke was really something. The seventh Duke was certainly really something. He was an eminent diplomat and had held various offices, as well as being in charge of surveying the Royal works of art—the King's works of art—and had also been a distinguished trustee of the National Gallery.

1209
I may say that the luncheon went extremely well: my genealogical points were answered satisfactorily and he had with him his distinguished librarian. There was an interesting library in Apsley House, as well as some interesting pictures of Spanish origin and other items. I feel rather remiss in not having visited since. I was encouraged by what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said. At the time, at 22, I had rather too much of the iron Duke, because I was educated—if that is not too strong a word for it—at a school founded in memory of the royal Duke. I see sitting in his place the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who was educated properly at the same institution.
I was so impressed and heartened by that visit to Apsley House that I remember thinking that it could become a really great attraction for students and tourists alike, as indeed it has. One remarkable characteristic of No. 1 London, as it is called—so it was not difficult for me to find when I went to lunch with the Duke—is that it gathers together a number of interesting items related to the first Duke of Wellington and his campaigns. In particular, I recall the bivouac that he used at the battle of Waterloo and various other pieces of weaponry, hats and insignia, all of which added up to, to use the modern expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a good visitor experience. That is not an expression I use, although I do talk about my educational experience, which is somewhat different. It is a remarkable place.
I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that contact with the family needs to be maintained. The seventh Duke gave the house to the nation. The apartments at the top of the building were arranged so that the family could stay there, with arrangements for entertaining and so on. Those have all worked well.
We must count this building as one of the great houses of England. Those great houses are always better presented if the family remains associated with them, but that is not always possible. I give this note of warning, and I am sure that it will not occur in the arrangements that the Government will make. However, when bodies are appointed to look after such houses one must ensure that the personalities involved will work with the family.
The family still maintains a strong interest in Apsley House. A number of items in Stratfield Saye could well be placed in Apsley House. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. It would be a mistake to clutter the house. The relationship between the family and whoever is responsible for the building should be close, sensitive and happy. In that way, one increases its attraction.
I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks about the educational aspect. It is important that young people should have the opportunity to be educated about one of the great figures of our history who has been somewhat ignored, as have most of our historical figures. We are going through a phase where history is not fashionable. Sadly, nowadays children will not know much about the Duke of Wellington. If they attend Wellington College, they will do so because
1210
they will see the pineapples which the Duke liked and history is rammed down the throat. However, it is no longer a quasi-military establishment, which is a relief.
The Victoria and Albert Museum has done a good job over the years. We understand why it does not find it possible to continue to run the museum aspect of the house. We have great confidence in the new director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Mark Jones. He has a large task on his hands. There are important developments for that great museum. He wants to keep his eye on the ball. I understand that Apsley House would be a distraction. It is the time for this change to take place.
We welcome this sensible order. When the Minister has answered the searching questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I shall be even further assured that it is a sensible measure which will lead to this attraction being increasingly important and a centre of education.
1 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, first, having recently visited the museum I found it an educational experience. But more than that, it was an exciting artistic experience because the collections are magnificent. I welcome the Minister's remarks about the importance which will continue to be attached to the educational aspects of what the museum is doing. They arc immensely important. I am glad that she spelt out so fully what is being done.
Secondly, I refer to access. When I first went to the museum I was rather terrified at the thought of approaching it. One sees the traffic hurtling along that very wide road and there is no obvious indication that it is perfectly safe to get there. There is very little advertising of the fact that one can cross the road underground in total safety from three directions. Can the Minister ensure that that situation is improved? Potential visitors should be more numerous although the situation is developing well, as the noble Baroness indicated when she cited the figures of attendance. Can the noble Baroness ensure that that somewhat frightening deterrent is changed so that people realise that it is totally safe to go to the museum'?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the order from all sides of the House. I shall do my best to answer the questions put in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. However, they are rather detailed and if I cannot do so, I shall obtain the answers and write to her.
The noble Baroness asked when the hand-over will take place. We hope that it will be some time in the late autumn of this year. I think that it will take that amount of time for the process to be gone through properly. Noble Lords would want that to be done properly.
She asked about repairs and maintenance and what would happen if there were an overrun. In any contract, it is important to ensure that the bidder pays for any overruns. That will apply with regard to capital contracts at Apsley House as it would anywhere else.

1211
The noble Baroness asked about the pension position after the transfer takes place of staff who currently work there. I cannot add a great deal to what I said in my opening remarks. We shall act in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on the transfer of staff. We shall ensure that the rights of existing staff are protected.
She asked about accountability. The contract will be managed and overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that there will be no problems. However, if there were to be a problem about the contract being met, the DCMS could terminate the contract. I hope that that is a clear response.
The noble Baroness asked about the process of market testing; and how many organisations might bid for the contract. I have no idea. I do not know how many people are likely to do so. We know that one body is interested. But it is quite likely that there may be others.
The noble Baroness asked what initial funding meant. It means five years and then it would be right to have a review. As I hope I made clear, the capital works will continue to be funded by the DCMS. I do not anticipate any problems about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked about objects at Stratfield Saye. They belong to the family, but I know that the family is willing to loan them to the museum. It is intended to make the museum more like the home of the Duke of Wellington than simply a collection of exhibits. I accept the need to ensure that there is no cluttering up. I am sure that that can be avoided. I agree with the noble Baroness about the wonderful quality of the collections at Apsley House, especially the paintings. But I have also seen some wonderful objects at Stratfield Saye. Far more people would be able to see them in London so it is a helpful and generous offer from the family that more objects should be shown in London.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has not had any further invitations from dukes. Perhaps some will now be forthcoming. I am grateful for his welcome for what the Government are proposing, particularly what he said about education. I do not agree that history is not fashionable; it is very fashionable. Large numbers of children and young people are interested in history, and they ought to be interested in the first duke and his many exploits, as a general and as a politician.
The noble Viscount is, of course, right in what he says about the V&A having many other considerations that it wants to fulfil, to ensure that the enormous success of the British galleries continues and that the work that goes on in the V&A and in the other museums for which they are responsible continues to prosper and improve.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked about access to Apsley House. There are underpasses at Hyde Park Corner, so one can go underneath the road, rather than risk one's life trying to cross the road. I accept that the traffic there is somewhat intimidating, but I
1212
doubt whether my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions or Westminster City Council can, in fact, hugely reduce the flow of traffic.
I also accept what the noble Lord said about the need for good advertising and marketing of one of London's great gems. I am sure that whoever takes on responsibility in the new trust will be aware of that.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I want to clarify a point about which I have obviously misled the Minister. I am not suggesting that any alteration should be made to the traffic. I am suggesting that it should be made clear to the public that it is perfectly safe to get to the museum because of the underground access from several directions.
I find it surprising that there is so little advertising in the underground access or visible above ground in the approaches to it. Perhaps, there could be some banners or something like that, but there is nothing to show that one can get there safely; one finds out by chance.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am happy to see whether we can make some improvement. Perhaps some signs could be put up making it clear that one can get across from the Underground at the other side of the road through the underpass, without risking life and limb.
I am grateful for the support for the order. I hope that we can now get on with seeking tenders. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked what criteria would be used. They are fairly obvious: the management and business plan must be in order, the education work must continue, and the great asset of Apsley House and its contents must be properly preserved and properly shown to—we hope—an ever-larger public.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002
1.14 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002. I hope that, despite its technical nature, it will not be necessary to take up too much of the House's time in dealing with it.
The order introduces new requirements to limit noise from light helicopters and microlights and emissions of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from subsonic jets. It also consolidates existing requirements to limit noise from new supersonic aircraft types and emissions of smoke and unburned hydrocarbons from jet aircraft and to prevent intentional fuel venting during normal operations. The

1213
order does not affect noise standards from subsonic jet aircraft or from propeller-driven aircraft: those are covered by the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999.
The problem of aircraft noise is not confined just to jet aircraft at major airports such as Heathrow. Noise from aircraft such as helicopters and microlights using local airfields can also cause discomfort and misery for local residents, especially in the summer months. It is important that that nuisance be minimised. That can be achieved, at least in part, by ensuring that effective standards are set to limit noise from such aircraft. That is what the order does.
Gaseous emissions from aircraft can affect local air quality and contribute to climate change. Air traffic increases are likely to exacerbate those effects. It therefore makes sense to limit the pollutants from aviation. The UK's Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008–12 includes emissions from domestic aviation. The standards in the order will help us to meet that target and the EU limit value for oxides of nitrogen that will be mandatory in 2010.
All the new requirements in the order are recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, with the exception of the new noise limitation standards for microlights, an aircraft type for which there are no internationally agreed standards. My department and the Department of Trade and Industry played a full part in helping to ensure that the recommendations were technically feasible and economically reasonable, as well as environmentally beneficial. In the case of microlight noise, there are national standards in the UK and some European countries. The order tightens existing UK standards and brings them closer into line with those in Europe.
The requirements of the order have been the subject of consultation with representatives of industry and users to ensure that they will not impose an unjustifiable or unreasonable burden on those affected and that aircraft produced in the UK will be able fully to meet them if they do not already do so. Aircraft manufactured and operated to ICAO standards can be sold and operated freely in most—if not all—of the 187 member countries of ICAO. I am confident that: the order will be neither burdensome nor, I hope, controversial. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, on these Benches, we support the order and agree with the Minister that it should not be controversial.
I welcome the Minister's remarks about microlights. It is always important to balance the development of the sport and leisure industry, making sure that there is no undue regulation, with the importance of ensuring that local residents are not unduly adversely
1214
affected by the development of a leisure facility. The provisions of the order serve the interests of micro light users and local residents well.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we also support the order, although one would need a degree as a senior wrangler to qualify the formula that is set out in the papers. I take the noble Lord's assurance that it is right.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, I welcome the order. I suppose that it is always incumbent on me to declare my interest whenever aviation matters arise.
It is important that environmental considerations be fully taken into account when we consider the advance of British aviation. The difficulties that have been met so far have been attributed to two factors: there was something of a recession before 11th September, and it has been exacerbated by the events of that day. I do not think, however, that we should take our eye off the ball as far as concerns the order. It is tremendously important that people who live around our major airports know that the Government take environmental issues seriously. I believe that this order demonstrates that fact.
As a former aviation Minister and Transport Commissioner, perhaps I may point out that, in my view, the CAA carries out a superlative job. The more we can pay tribute to that organisation the better. The measure put before us today by the Government is really of tremendous importance. I should like to raise a few queries about Article 15(1), which says:
"Within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by the CAA or an authorised person",
certain events should take place as regards the commander of an aircraft. I do not ask my noble friend the Minister to be wholly specific on the matter. but can he say what he has in mind by the words "a reasonable time"? Further, can he say who such an "authorised person" would be? Presumably, the CAA does not have jurisdiction over all airports and it is possible that that situation is covered by the mention of an "authorised person". I do not know the answer, but I believe my noble friend has that information. I call upon him to substantiate the definition before the House.
Leaving those points aside, I believe that the order before the House today is a measure that deserves wholehearted support.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this order has received from all sides of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, is quite right: we have to strike a balance between regulation to protect the public and the interests of the industry. I believe that that has been achieved on the micro] ight standards. We are discussing an important growth industry for Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, commented that one needed "senior wrangler" status, which. I admit, I do not possess, to understand the formula. Indeed, as

1215
is often the case, it is probably true to say that you also need that when reading other parts of the order. Nevertheless, I welcome the noble Lord's backing for the measure.
The House recognises the depth of experience of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, derived from his time as a former aviation Minister and as a transport commissioner in Europe. He affirmed the importance of good environmental standards—a view that is broadly shared—and asked some interesting, but difficult, questions about Article 15. He asked, first, what was the "reasonable time" within which the commander of an aircraft should produce to the CAA a noise certificate to demonstrate that he was in compliance with the terms of the order. I should tell the House that it will vary with the circumstances. If the aircraft were stationed at its home base, it would have to be a shorter period of time. However, if, for example, it were a foreign aircraft originating in another country, one would expect there to be a longer time limit. The aim is simply to clarify the state of the aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable, or, put another way, "in a reasonable time"; that is, the time that a reasonable person or organisation would take to supply the document, which, perhaps, takes it slightly circularly.
With regard to my noble friend's second point regarding who an "authorised person" would be, this is defined in Article 3 of the order as,
"any constable and any person authorised by the CAA".
Again, one finds oneself in circles. When I asked a civil servant who might be so authorised by the CAA, he replied "Me". That seemed to me to be a fairly good example of what one would expect; in other words, a relevant official for such purposes.
This order will strengthen environmental protection from aviation. It will help keep the UK abreast of the latest ICAO technical recommendations on aircraft noise and emissions. It will also help UK aircraft and engine manufacturers to sell overseas, as well as rationalising our domestic regulation for limiting the environmental impact of aviation.
Much work has been carried out to minimise, as far as possible, the environmental impact of aviation. As a government, we believe that more needs to be done; and much work to that end is in train, as part of the promised White Paper on developing our civil aviation policy that we intend to publish by the end of this year. The order is a modest but worthwhile contribution to the continuing effort to improve aviation in the meantime. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2002
1.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Part VII of the Act is extremely important. I shall summarise it briefly in an effort to assist the House. The powers in Part VII relate to the operation of the Diplock courts. They include powers for the Armed Forces; powers for the Secretary of State to requisition land for special purposes; and powers that, at present—I emphasise "at present"—the police in Northern Ireland need over and above the ordinary criminal law.
If the order is agreed, its effect would be to renew the Part VII powers for a further 12 months only with effect from the 19th February 2002 and finishing at midnight on 18th February 2003. In coming to the conclusion that such powers are needed, we have, as your Lordships would expect—and, indeed, demand—had recourse to security advice. We have also paid very careful attention to the recent report published by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am most grateful to him for the expedition with which he was able to report after his relatively recent appointment. The noble Lord came to the conclusion, which I entirely endorse, that the Part VII powers are required for the further 12 months.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, specifically asked for early consideration to be given to the repeal of Section 76 of the Act, which relates to the admissibility of confession evidence in Diplock court cases. The Secretary of State has already indicated his intention to launch a consultation exercise focused on the possible repeal of this section. That exercise will begin very shortly—by which I mean a matter of days, not months.
There is also the question of bail to consider. I shall be happy to deal with any particular questions that noble Lords may wish to raise. However, I respectfully commend the House to the view that the Part VII powers are necessary for this 12-month period. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise simply to confirm that noble Lords on these Benches support the making of the order. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for referring to Section 76 and for confirming that we are talking about a very short space of time before such issues are addressed by the Government.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for his characteristically excellent exposition of the purpose behind the order, and for acknowledging the report undertaken by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. Noble Lords on these Benches would also like to welcome the report and to pay tribute to its author for compiling such a thorough, yet clear and accessible, report.
I have a few points to raise with the noble and learned Lord. First, my noble friend Lord Carlile concluded that the post of an independent reviewer

1217
should be given wider publicity within Northern Ireland, so that the public can more generally understand what his role involves.
In Section 5, referring to the Diplock courts, the Carlile report reached a similar conclusion; that is, that the system is working adequately, but that my noble friend will continue to make an independent assessment of the debate surrounding the Diplock courts. We believe that that is very necessary. It is unfortunate that provision must be made to have Diplock courts, although we accept that they need to be continued. However, that continuation should be kept under constant scrutiny.
With regard to Section 6 of the report, discussing admissions and trials on indictment, my noble friend makes the point that:
"No evidence of substance was placed before me to justily the continuation of non-PACE standards. In my view there is an overwhelming case for applying the PACE standard uniformly. I recommend that Her Majesty's Government should give early consideration to the repeal of Section 76 … and that PACE standards should be applied to confession evidence in all cases".
It was gratifying to hear from the Minister that the Government are giving urgent consideration to that point.
Finally, Section 14, relating to Section 103 of the Act, deals with terrorist information. Here we should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will give consideration to extending the effects of the section to include part-time prison officers and part-time social workers and nurses employed by the Prison Service, and other comparable categories. Part-timers are just as likely to be at risk as full-time employees.
We regret the necessity of having to continue this order for yet another year and we hope that, as things improve, it will lapse sooner rather than later. In the mean time, we support its extension.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to speak because this morning I received a letter from Professor Brice Dickson, the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, making on behalf of the commission a number of criticisms of the report of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew.
I do not endorse these criticisms because, frankly, I am in no position to do so. I cannot comment on them one way or the other because I do not have the background knowledge, but they have been raised by an important public body which has responsibilities to advise in this field. I think it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could reply to the criticisms that have been made. However, I understand that the noble and learned Lord has not himself received a copy of this letter. Unfortunately it has arrived very late in the day. As I have said, it reached me only this morning and was posted yesterday, but I did show a copy of it to the noble and learned Lord's civil servants.
The particular points made by the commission are as follows. First, it is unhappy with the further continuation of the Diplock courts. Secondly, it is
1218
unhappy with the continuance of the restrictions on bail imposed by Section 67 of the Act. Thirdly, it is unhappy with the continuance of the police power of arrest under Section 82 of the Act. Various other comments have been made, but those points go to the report rather than being relevant to the order. However, I think that I should mention that the commission has said that its effectiveness is jeopardised by the reluctance of some government agencies to co-operate fully with its inquiries.
Having raised these points, as I think it is proper to do, I wait with interest to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say in reply.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for those responses. Perhaps I may deal first with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. It is very important, for reasons of substance rather than presentation, that one has an independent reviewer where there is any deviation, as it were, from the normal criminal law range of sanctions in place in the rest of the United Kingdom. I say with respect that I believe that, as it was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile's point was extremely well made. A good deal of felicity needs to be given, first, because 1-us inquiries ought to be transparent and, secondly, because rightly or wrongly certain people may feel aggrieved whose experiences ought to be known to the reviewer. In so far as the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, needs any support, then I willingly give it on behalf of the Government; that is, that there should he the widest publicity given to him in exercising his reports.
Secondly, I turn to the question of the Diplock courts. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. on the basis of a letter he has received from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. 'The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite uncompromising in his conclusion. I am a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and I know practitioners over there of all different backgrounds and political views. They have always been unanimous in agreeing with the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the Diplock courts provide courts of a very high quality indeed. They have the unusual requirement that the tribunal which finds guilt or fails to find guilt actually has to give reasons. That is extremely useful for someone who then wishes to launch a reasoned appeal. That is something that juries in the rest of the United Kingdom do not give; they simply pass their verdict.
I am bound to say that in every judgment of the Diplock courts that I have read. I have been particularly heartened by the scrupulous fairness with which the judges approach their work. I pay tribute to them because every one of them, along with their families, still works every day in conditions of privation in contrast to the rest of us who do not have security limitations placed on our ordinary lives and freedoms.

1219
Noble Lords and, I believe, the noble Baroness, were good enough to refer to the fact that I dealt with Section 76 in my introductory remarks. The question of Section 103, which has raised a particular question related to part-time employees is, I think, a reasonable question that ought to be looked at. That will be done.
The particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were, first, the Diplock courts. The security assessment is quite unambiguous. We have to remind ourselves that Northern Ireland has a very small population and one of its characteristics is that people tend to know what other people are doing. That is in the nature of things. I do not doubt at all that Diplock courts are justifiable if we are to have a criminal justice system operating at the moment. That is because the opportunities for intimidation, overt or covert and on a continuing basis, are plain in Northern Ireland.
Section 67, covering bail in scheduled offences, raises two aspects. The first is that it is limited to the High Court. I believe that it is a prudent step to take. High Court judges are not capable of being intimidated in the ways that magistrates might be. I believe that it would be unfair to put magistrates into a position where they might be subject to threat. Perhaps I may also say with respect that High Court judges can ensure a consistency of approach to questions of bail which, again, is extremely important in this area.
1220
Secondly, it is suggested, I think wrongly, that there is a presumption against bail. There is not. It is a matter left entirely within the discretion of the High Court judge and there is no presumption against bail.
The final question covered the matter of arrest under Section 82 which I agree is more extensive than that found in the rest of the United Kingdom. The security assessment is that this is required. On my recollection, it is endorsed by the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland—I shall not go into them in any detail because they were eloquently addressed when we discussed these matters on a contemporaneous basis during the Report stage of the legislation—these powers are needed. The sooner that the powers are no longer needed, the more we shall all rejoice. But one has to be realistic and this is a matter of public protection, on which no government can sensibly or responsibly be silent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Overseas Territories Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before two o'clock until Monday, 25th February next.

  Afghanistan: Prisoner of War Status
  Afghanistan: Prisoner of War Status
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  EU Developments: Six-monthly Report
  EU Developments: Six-monthly Report
  Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Reviewe
  Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Reviewe
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Asylum Seekers: Driving Licence Applications
  Asylum Seekers: Driving Licence Applications
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Ministerial Briefings: Acoustics
  Ministerial Briefings: Acoustics
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort
  Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  House of Lords Office Space
  House of Lords Office Space