Sitting of 28 February 2002

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 7 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    EU Growth and Stability Pact
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the operation of the EU growth and stability pact. [35742]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I request to answer that question at the end of Question Time, so that we may have a fuller debate on it.

    Stamp Duty
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on stamp duty exemptions. [35743]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): New investment, new businesses and new jobs are the key to regenerating our high unemployment communities. In the pre-Budget report is a special measure to help the slowest growing and highest unemployment areas of Britain. The Government have abolished stamp duty in 2,000 wards in constituencies throughout the country, for all transactions for homes and business properties worth up to £150,000, leading in the first three months to 5,000 claims for purchases worth £450 million—an average saving of £900 per transaction. As my hon. Friend is aware, the qualifying areas include two wards in her constituency. In the Budget I propose to legislate so that we can take more business property transactions out of stamp duty in these areas.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The measures certainly have been welcome in the two wards in my constituency and the three wards in neighbouring Grimsby. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that he will extend these welcome exemptions, but will he also consider including more of the deprived
    816
    wards in that exemption? Residents in the neighbouring wards to the two in my constituency would certainly like to benefit from these measures as well.
    Mr. Brown: The definition that has been used for choosing the wards is that they are the 15 per cent. most deprived wards in the country, and that has led to the choice that we have made, based on the most up-to-date information. My hon. Friend has welcomed our plans to extend that scheme involving business properties, and I hope that they will be welcomed on both sides of the House. What we are proposing here is a move from the old strategy, which was either providing girocheques to people who were unemployed or providing only property subsidies. The stamp duty exemptions go side by side with changes in policy to reduce VAT for conversions in high streets, for transferring businesses into houses; the community investment tax credit, which we are introducing in the Budget; and the community investment fund. All these measures are designed to help the creation of small businesses and the development of economic activity in communities that have hitherto been high unemployment communities.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Have the United Kingdom Government made a state aid notification on stamp duty exemptions to the European Commission, and if so, what response has the Commission made?
    Mr. Brown: We believe that our proposals will be acceptable to the Commission. We will go ahead with our proposals on that basis. I will announce further proposals in the Budget on that basis. The hon. Gentleman should be particularly pleased, because 42 per cent. of areas in Wales qualify under our proposals. I emphasise that the help that is available now to start small businesses in those areas, including advice and help from the Small Business Service in England and the relevant services in Scotland and Wales, should enable us to bridge the gap whereby, in Britain, only half as many small businesses are created as in America, and only one small business is created in the poorest areas for every six created in the richest areas. Therefore we will go ahead with our proposals.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that, welcome though it is that there has been a 1 million cut in unemployment and that we have the highest level of employment throughout the country, he is right to concentrate on those areas that need to be revitalised after the massive attacks—pit closures, textile closures and so on? Will he therefore bear it in mind that the new £24 million development in Shirebrook in the north Derbyshire area is important, as is junction 29A, which will revitalise three constituencies in north Derbyshire? Will my right hon. Friend, together with what he is about to announce today, ensure that that type of programme continues, because there will be not only economic benefit but electoral benefit from acting in this fashion?
    Mr. Brown: Our policies for both stability and economic regeneration have led to the creation of

    817
    1.3 million more jobs in this country over the last five years. At the same time we have the lowest inflation and the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years.
    I should have thought that among the Conservatives there would be at least one Member wishing to intervene to thank us for introducing these measures because the shadow Chancellor has four wards in his constituency that are benefiting from the stamp duty exemption, and that is one of the reasons why we have cut unemployment in his constituency by 50 per cent. over the last five years. It is about time that the Conservatives abandoned their policy to get rid of the new deal and supported our policies for both stability and prosperity.

    Management Costs
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What studies his Department has undertaken of the management costs of (a) PPPs and (b) conventionally procured public sector projects. [35744]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Studies have focused on overall value for money rather than the specific components to which the hon. Lady refers. National Audit Office reports have shown, of course, that that value for money is being achieved. Management costs in private finance initiative projects do of course cover items like whole-life maintenance, which are not typically provided for in conventional procurement.
    Mrs. Calton: My question is about the cost of monitoring London Underground's public-private partnership. Transport for London has argued that the attribution process for London Underground's PPP is so complex and bureaucratic as to be practically unworkable. Given the Treasury's intimate involvement with London Underground's PPP, what estimate has the Treasury made of the cost of monitoring the 1,000 service disruptions and 350 facilities faults a week? Is the Chancellor aware that London Underground will have to monitor the performance of the infracos down to the amount of time it takes to fix a light bulb? How many people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is far too long.
    Mr. Smith: As was committed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the House regularly receives reports on the costs of the consultancy involved in carrying forward London Underground's PPP. If we are talking about value for money, as we must, and the much-needed modernisation of the London underground, let us not forget that the PPP involves £16 billion of investment during the first 15 years of the project—the equivalent of six Jubilee lines will be constructed—and it is £2 billion cheaper than the public sector comparator. That is much-needed investment for London. London Underground remains responsible for the trains, ticketing, stations and has overall responsibility for safety, while we give world-leading companies the responsibility of carrying out that much-needed investment to world-class standards. Let us get on with it.
    Ross Cranston: In addition to comparative costs, capital costs, economic efficiencies and so on, do not we also have to taken into account the Keynesian aphorism:
    "In the long run we are all dead"?
    In Dudley, we would be on a waiting list for a new hospital; as a result of the PFI, we are getting a new hospital now.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. The crucial thing is not only that the PFI and the PPP are bringing forward much-needed investment, but, with this Government, that investment is additional to conventional public sector investment, whereas the Conservative party used it as an excuse to cut public investment.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If the Treasury is so proud of its PPP programme for London Underground, why was a Treasury Minister not sent to the inquiry into that very subject of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions? Have the Government got something to hide?
    Mr. Smith: There is a well established precedent that we do, of course, attend Select Committees, including the Transport Sub-Committee, when the matters under consideration are the lead responsibility of the Treasury. The DTLR has lead responsibility for the items discussed in the case to which the hon. Lady refers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a very good report to the Committee.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a very successful—in fact, an award wining—PPP in Glasgow under which 10 of the city's secondary schools have been completely rebuilt and a further 19 have been refurbished? Can he tell the House what plans the Government will put in place to safeguard the security of tenure and the wages and conditions of those employees who move from local authority employment to that of private companies?
    Mr. Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those responsible for introducing such a radical improvement to the school facilities available to young people in Glasgow. Those schools are among the 500 throughout Britain that are benefiting from PFI investment. On the important point that he makes about staff, not only will the Government act, but we have already acted to improve the pension protections for staff in guaranteeing the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and in mandating consultation with the staff involved. That will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the draft contracts for London Underground's PPP contain absolutely no provision for terminating the contract if an infraco fails during the first seven and a half years? Is he happy to have no termination rights in that draft contract?
    Mr. Smith: I am satisfied that, as I said earlier, the PPP represents best value for money. It enables us to mobilise

    819
    world-leading engineering expertise satisfactorily, as it must be to complete the much-needed investment in the London underground. The people of London will be very interested that the Liberal Democrats want to carry on scoring political points about that, whereas we want to get on with the investment.

    International Debt
    Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on his recent initiative for relief of international debt. [35745]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): This week, Ghana reached decision point, qualifying for $3.7 billion of debt relief from the international community, including the United Kingdom, writing off 100 per cent. of the $200 million of debt owed by Ghana. That means that 25 countries—21 from Africa—will benefit from $60 billion in debt relief with potentially $100 billion of debt relief in prospect. Our plans support greater flexibility in debt reduction as part of a global new deal. In return for countries pursuing corruption-free policies that will encourage stability, trade and investment, we will raise development aid worldwide in cash terms and as a proportion of national income.
    Mr. McFall: I commend the Chancellor on his speech in New York in November and on his Marshall plan for global poverty alleviation. In his New York speech, he mentioned the sheer lack of investment in poor countries. On my visits in the past few years to Zambia in Africa and Peru in Latin America, I have seen regression on the ground instead of progression. Will the Chancellor say what structural changes should take place with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to ensure that countries that are grindingly poor at the moment have a better future?
    Mr. Brown: Our proposal is for a trust fund of $50 billion a year. That would mean the effective doubling of international aid so that we can meet the 2015 development targets, whereby every child of primary school age should have free education, infant mortality is cut by two thirds, and, at the same time, poverty is halved. As for the changes that are necessary, first, we believe that countries must pursue stability-oriented polices and must therefore agree to new codes and rules for governing their financial, monetary and economic policies. Secondly, we must push forward on the Doha trade agenda. Thirdly, we must create a better environment for private as well as public investment. In return, we will make available additional resources. The next stage of that is the Monterrey conference in Mexico—the finance for development conference—at which I hope that other countries will also put up additional cash to support our proposals.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I welcome the Chancellor's commitment to assisting developing countries. Will he say more about the corruption-free policies that go hand in hand with relief of international debt? He may not know that the International Development Committee is visiting Ghana next week. We have seen throughout Africa and elsewhere that corruption
    820
    makes poor people poorer and harms the poor people in the world. Without corruption-free policies, international debt relief will have little effect on their lives.
    Mr. Brown: I hope that we will have all-party support—and that that may be reflected in an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench—for what we are trying to achieve at Monterrey. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the factors that has blighted the development of Africa and has made it difficult for people to justify additional aid, has been the amount of corruption that has taken place in a number of regimes throughout that continent. One of our proposals is designed to remove that possibility in the future as far as possible. Each country must agree to abide by the international rules of the game, and publish exactly what they are doing in their monetary, fiscal and general financial policy. Their accounts must be transparent and available for people to see. Additional expenditures or the siphoning off of money can therefore be investigated properly by the authorities. That demands a bigger role for the IMF and the World Bank in the surveyance of the financial activities of those countries and in insisting on structural reform.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that our domestic legislation to prevent people from being able to claim bribes as part of tax relief is another measure that offers a way forward. I hope that there will be all-party support for what we are trying to do at Monterrey. That means that in return for pursuing those policies, we are prepared to put more money into solving intractable problems in Africa, which, with the international community working together, we can begin to address.
    Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the heavily indebted poor countries debt relief conditions were based on an export growth rate of about 6 per cent. The World Bank's report stated that the growth rate was only about 4 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will press for greater flexibility in the debt relief conditions to ensure that we do not end up with re-emerging problems of debt unsustainability?
    Mr. Brown: That is why we insisted at the last meeting of the IMF committee that we include in our communique the commitment to be far more flexible on the terms under which debt reduction is available in future and to take account not just of the loss of exports by many countries, but of the general decline in world trade. The year before last, world trade grew by about 13 per cent.; last year, it barely grew at all, and the position of countries in Africa worsened as a result. That is one flexibility that we are including in future attitudes to debt relief.
    The other flexibility relates to countries that are moving out of conflict. In Africa in particular many countries are denied debt relief because they are in conflict. Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Sudan which have the possibility of coming out of conflict could be more readily eligible for the debt relief that is necessary for restructuring. That is our second proposal for flexibility in debt relief.
    Mr. David Lidington: I first welcome and support the Chancellor's efforts to develop policies on international debt relief. His work will command the

    821
    support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Can he confirm that the World Bank report published just last month forecasts that the 24 poorest countries will, after debt relief, still have to pay about $¼ billion more in debt service in 2005 than in 2002? Can he also confirm that the sustainability of the repayments depends, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) explained, on forecasts for growth and exports, which a number of expert observers think are over-optimistic? How certain is he that the present debt relief initiative programme will have the beneficial results that we all want?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the debt relief initiatives. With the Monterrey conference next month, the IMF and World Bank meetings in April, the children's conference organised by the United Nations in May and the Johannesburg summit in September, this is the year in which we must make progress on meeting the millennium development targets. Whatever support comes from all parties in the House to back up the efforts of churches and non-governmental organisations throughout the world will be significant.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the latest World Bank report. It is not necessarily the case that the figures, which he correctly says will be difficult for the poorest countries to meet, will be realised. The greater flexibility that we are offering in debt relief, the chance to create the new trust fund and the greater effort that the Prime Minister is putting into providing more funds for Africa could come together to reduce the burden that countries are under in meeting debt relief.
    I acknowledge the efforts of the previous Chancellor to move the debt relief policy forward, but when we started on debt relief in 1997 only one country was likely to get it; now 25 receive debt relief. When we said $100 billion could be relieved, people said that that was impossible, but $60 billion has been agreed. If conflict countries such as Sudan and the DRC can come into the debt relief process the figure would be $100 billion. I am optimistic that if we work together we will make progress on an agenda that is vital for dealing not just with poverty and poor economic prospects in such countries, but with ill health and illiteracy among millions of children.

    Primary Education
    Valerie Davey: What steps he is taking to encourage his counterparts in other countries to provide funding to ensure that all children worldwide receive primary education by 2015. [35746]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On 12 March, the Government will launch the Commonwealth education fund. It is shocking that 113 million children still do not have the chance to go to primary school. Two thirds of those are girls and in the Commonwealth more than 70 million children are still denied education. By helping civil society to strengthen the quality of national education plans, the fund will support the achievement of universal primary education in the poorest Commonwealth countries. That is also supported by £600 million in education funding from the Department for International Development. Our proposals
    822
    for a new international trust fund would mean $10 billion to $12 billion extra a year from the international community to promote universal primary education.
    Valerie Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for the positive response. Many of my constituents write regularly about global inequalities and their concerns about that. They would want me to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for his international leadership. Are the G8 educational task force and the World Bank committed in their support of primary international education to ensuring that it is provided equally for girls?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the issue. I applaud her work as a constituency MP in raising it locally and her work internationally, as she worked in Africa for some time. Our proposals would help most of all the two thirds of girls who are denied primary education. They form 80 million of the total denied primary education at the moment.
    It is worth pointing out that there has been some progress in recent years, which is a signal for us to want to do more. In Uganda, primary education numbers will double as a result of the debt relief provided. In Malawi, enrolment has increased by 60 per cent. since 1995. It is moving forward in many other African countries, too, but it is still too little, and we will not meet the target of every child receiving primary education by 2015 unless we put more funds in now.

    The G8 initiative taken at the Canadian summit will be important to that, but at the end of the day, each donor country must be prepared to put more resources into overseas aid development. We will do that, and we hope by our actions to persuade others to do so. I am grateful for the chance during these questions for the House of Commons to debate these important issues.
    John Cryer: I also welcome everything that the Chancellor has said this morning. However, does he accept that primary and secondary education and other public services have been deeply damaged by the IMF structural adjustment programme, particularly in Rwanda, where there was a direct link between the IMF's intervention and the destruction of education and the massacres that followed? Will he assure the House that he will bring maximum pressure to bear on discussions with the IMF and other international bodies to ensure that such measures are not repeated?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He should know that the operation of the structural adjustment facility by the IMF has been abolished as a result of a decision that it took over the past period. We now have poverty and growth facilities, and plans have been drawn up that involve the communities as well as the Governments of individual countries. More money is being put into education and health as a result. Our target is a far higher proportion of each country's budget going into education and health. As a result of pressure from my hon. Friend and many others, the old structural adjustment policy has been abolished, and the IMF and the World Bank are working together under the new proposal to tackle poverty.

    Euro
    Mr. David Laws: On what date his Department started the preliminary technical work for evaluating the five economic tests for euro membership. [35747]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): After the first detailed assessment of the five tests in 1997, we said that our policy was to prepare and decide and to make an assessment early in the Parliament. The assessment of the five economic tests has not started, but last year we set out the necessary next stage of preliminary and technical work. That preliminary and technical work includes the cyclical behaviour of the United Kingdom economy relative to the euro area and relative responses to economic shocks; the mechanisms by which product, labour and capital markets adjust; the impact of the single currency on the costs and availability of capital; the effect of the single currency on financial services; and the impact of the single currency on trade, competition, productivity and employment.
    Mr. Laws: I thank the Chancellor for that very full answer. On the investment test, will reform of the growth and stability pact be necessary before Britain is willing to sign up to the euro? I ask specifically in relation to the document that he is launching today about reform in the European Union. Does paragraph 1.13 of that document mean that reform of the growth and stability pact is a pre-condition to entry to the euro?
    Mr. Brown: There is no sixth test. I have just explained the five tests and the work that we are doing to examine them. I hope that all Members would agree that the growth and stability pact is in need of improvement in three separate areas. First, it should be reformed to take account of the economic cycle. In other words, there should be flexibility when the world economy and, indeed, the European economy are in downturn. Secondly, it should be reformed to take account of public investment, which matters to us here because health, education and transport investment are absolutely crucial. However, that matters throughout Europe in the rebuilding of the infrastructure in many countries.
    Thirdly, the pact should be reformed to take account of debt sustainability. What is relevant to a country with a debt to GDP ratio of 110 per cent., such as Italy or Belgium, is not relevant to a country such as Britain where, as a result of efforts in the past few years, the ratio has been reduced to 30 per cent.
    I believe that those reforms are gaining support within the European Union, and we will continue to push them. Our assessment will be made on the five tests that were set down in 1997, repeated by the Prime Minister in 1999, and repeated in the document to be published later today.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important not only that his Department continues the preparations for the evaluation of whether the tests are met, but that the House is well informed? Will he affirm that the preparations for the euro group—comprising those who lead on Treasury matters for all the parties represented in the House—constantly seeks ways in which we can prepare for joining the euro
    824
    in the event of a yes vote in the referendum? It is not a group that promotes the euro, but one that monitors progress in banking, retailing and the public sector.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the group's most important other function is to make sure that the Government do not spend money on promoting the euro? Given those facts, is it not a wonder that still the Conservative party is the only party in the House that has not joined the committee and did not come to the meeting this week?
    Mr. Brown: When we set up the committee, I sent an invitation to all political parties in the House of Commons. The standing committee on euro preparations, which I chair, includes the Governor of the Bank of England, the head of the Confederation of British Industry, the head of the British Chambers of Commerce, and representation from small business and the British Bankers Association—all relevant bodies concerned about economic and financial matters in relation to the euro and economic policy in Europe.
    To complement that committee, a standing committee was set up in the House of Commons. We sent an invitation to sit on the committee to every political party in the House of Commons. The invitation was accepted by every political party with only one exception: the Conservative party. That is because the Conservative party has ruled out discussion of those issues as a matter of dogma. That everyone else, including the whole of British industry and British commerce, is prepared to discuss those issues shows how far apart the Conservative party is from business today.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Chancellor aware that most of the business men who support entry into the euro believe that it will first be necessary for the Government to engineer a devaluation to a more competitive exchange rate? Is he also aware that every Government who have devalued the pound have been defeated at the subsequent election?
    Mr. Brown: He should know. It is difficult to take lectures from the Conservative party about the running of exchange rate policy given the ignominious exit from the exchange rate mechanism that occurred when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "You supported it."] Now the Opposition blame us when we were in opposition for the policies that they pursued in government. I know that it is the fate of the Opposition to become irresponsible, but the Conservatives should take responsibility for the policies that they pursued in government, when the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) were members of the Cabinet.
    The fact is that we will assess the five tests and report to the Cabinet; if we make a yes decision, we will then report to Parliament and the country. For the first time, a decision on those matters is to be made after fundamental, rigorous and comprehensive examination of the economic issues. One thing is clear about 1990 and the ERM: the Conservatives made no examination of the proper issues.
    David Taylor: If the German fudge shows us anything, it is that sustained cyclical convergence is impossible without deep-rooted

    825
    structural convergence. Does the Chancellor agree that, given the huge differences between us and Europe in trade mix, housing finance, pension finance and company finance, we are further away than ever from meeting the economic convergence criteria that he so frequently spells out? Are we not therefore several years—perhaps it will not happen until deep into the third term of an Administration led by him—from a referendum that will resolve those matters?
    Mr. Brown: I have always said that I will not give a running commentary on the five tests—nor on any other matter. The five tests include whether sustainable and durable convergence can be achieved, as well as an examination of employment, investment and flexibility—all the matters that are relevant to a proper and rigorous economic assessment.
    We are determined that the decision will be made in the national economic interest. The real divide in politics is between us, who would make a decision based on the national economic interest, and the Opposition, who have ruled out a single currency even if it were to be in the national economic interest. Theirs is an irresponsible position.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Who is in charge of all this—Mr. Ed Balls or the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain)?
    Mr. Brown: I shall present the economic assessment, as I presented the 1997 statement to the House of Commons and chair the standing committee on euro preparations. It is a matter for the Treasury to present its economic assessment and we will do so, as we said, before June 2003. The fact of the matter is that the statement that we made in 1997 remained unchanged in 1999; it is exactly the policy that we are pursuing now and it is the policy of the entire Government.
    Joyce Quin: As my right hon. Friend knows, more than half our exports of goods go to other European Union countries. Does he acknowledge that in certain regions the figure is far higher? For example, in my area in the north-east the figure is 76 per cent., which is perhaps why many businesses there favour entry into the euro. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that it would be crazy, given those facts and, when it takes place, a satisfactory assessment, to rule out membership of the euro, as I assume is still being advocated by the Opposition?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is right; 750,000 businesses trade with the euro area. It is crucial that we have the best relationships between the United Kingdom and Europe. It is for precisely those reasons that we have said that the decisive test—it would have to be clear and unambiguous—is the economic case for entry; that is what we have to examine and that is why the detailed work that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) is being done rigorously and comprehensively. The assessment will be made public at the end of that time.
    My right hon. Friend is right; it is a mistake to rule out on grounds of dogma what may be in the national economic interest. I have noticed that, during this Question Time, whereas on issues of urban renewal and
    826
    everything else no Conservative Members have sought to intervene, on the issue of Europe just about every Conservative Member wants to intervene. The leader of the Conservative party has said that Conservative Members will not go on talking endlessly about the euro because they are not monomaniacs and have more than one issue, but it is not clear today that they do.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I am most grateful to the Chancellor for providing me with my cue. May I begin by welcoming him on his return to the Dispatch Box? He will know that he has the sympathy and personal good wishes of hon. Members from all quarters of the House.
    Is it not extraordinary that this morning the Chancellor should play ducks and drakes with the Order Paper, deferring consideration of Question 1 without any explanation and for a reason about which we can only speculate?
    On the question asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), does the Chancellor agree with Gus O'Donnell that the economic case for joining the single currency can never be clear and unambiguous?
    Mr. Brown: Mr. Gus O'Donnell has said that he has no recollection of saying those things. As for Question 1 on the Order Paper, as I understand it, we are responding to a request from the Conservative party that we should deal with it at the end of proceedings. As for the whole question of the euro, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is important to look at those matters in detail. We have said that the economic case must be clear and unambiguous, which is why in July last year, and then in September, we published a list of all the studies that we are undertaking.
    I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have thought that that was a sensible course of action. Of course, the difference is that when the Conservative Government joined the exchange rate mechanism, they did so as a political act without taking in hand the necessary economic preparations. They did not make the necessary economic assessment and the result was their ignominious exit from the ERM in 1992. The shadow Chancellor must take full responsibility for the actions of that Government.
    Mr. Howard: Indeed, I do, but it is important to note that that decision was supported by all parties in the House, by the Chancellor personally at the time, by the Liberal Democrats, by the Confederation of British Industry and by the Trades Union Congress. I certainly do accept my share of responsibility.
    Mr. Gus O'Donnell was quoted as saying:
    "Economics can never be clear and unambiguous",
    and he has not denied that statement. Is it not the case that all the evidence shows that joining the single currency would be likely to have devastating consequences for the jobs, homes and livelihoods of the people of this country? Why does not the Chancellor accept that, put this distraction to one side, and concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the public services of our country?
    Mr. Brown: Mr. O'Donnell has made the position clear. On the question of the euro, our policy, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, is exactly the

    827
    policy that we set out in 1997. It was repeated in 1999. It is repeated now by me. The reason that that is the right policy, and I can show it to be the right policy, is that we are doing the work that is necessary for the economic assessment to take place.
    There is one school of thought in this country that says, "We would rule out a single currency, even if it were in the national economic interest to join."
    Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly the position of the Conservative party, and the shadow Chancellor himself has ruled out the single currency in principle. He said it when he stood for the Conservative leadership in 1997. I know that it got him only 12 votes at the time, but he said that then, and his leader has repeated ever since that the Conservatives are against the single currency in principle. What they are saying is that even if it were in the national economic interest to join, they would not do so, as an act of dogma.
    Our position is the sensible position. If a single currency is in the national economic interest, and proved to be so by the five tests that we are assessing at present, we will make a recommendation to the country. That is the sensible position for jobs, business and the economy as a whole. The Conservatives are locked in the past and we should take no lectures from a Conservative party that was responsible for our ignominious exit from the ERM, which the country will never forget.
    Denzil Davies: On the question of the devaluation of the pound, does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of engineering such a devaluation would be to put up domestic taxation, thereby achieving a better balance between monetary and fiscal policy?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend was in the Treasury in the 1970s. There were a number of Budgets at that time which put up taxes, but I believe that he did a very honourable job in the Treasury at that time. As regards our policy, we will announce our tax measures in the Budget, we will make the economic assessment in relation to the euro at the appropriate time, and all the facts and figures will be brought before the House. The assessment that we must make is whether a single currency would be good for investment, whether it would be good for jobs, whether there is sufficient flexibility in the economy, what would be the effect on the financial services, and whether there is sustained and durable convergence. Those are the questions that we are examining and on which we will make an assessment.
    Matthew Taylor: First, may I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to the Chancellor? He is welcome back and we feel strongly for him.
    The Chancellor has repeatedly said that he does not want a running commentary on the economic assessments. That message does not seem to have got through to his colleagues at the Foreign Office. Could he therefore end the running commentary by making clear the time scale
    828
    on which those tests are in fact being carried out, as compared with the Foreign Office version, with which he seems to disagree?
    Mr. Brown: The position is as I set out at the beginning of this Parliament and in my speech to the CBI in October: we will make an assessment, which will be completed before June 2003, and we will publish the results of that, as we did with the 1997 assessment.
    The Liberal Democrats are in a difficult position. Only a few days ago, the Liberal Democrat leader named the day on which he thought there should be a referendum. One can adopt the position that we will join irrespective of the assessment of the economic tests. One can name the day, and the Liberal Democrats have also named the exchange rate. Surely the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), in his new exalted position, calling himself shadow Chancellor, in competition with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—[Interruption.] Yes, it is a good competition. The one respect in which they are not competing well is with those on the Labour Benches. In his new position, surely the hon. Gentleman should consider this issue: if we decide that the single currency is in the national economic interest, it should be on the basis of compelling evidence, and the five economic tests that we have set down are the right basis on which we should make the decision. Far from naming the date and the exchange rate, the hon. Gentleman should look at the more detailed issues that are involved before that decision can be reached.

    Terrorist Organisations
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on the progress made by Customs and Excise in tracing the assets and bank accounts of proscribed terrorist organisations. [35748]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Customs and Excise is one of the many investigative and law enforcement agencies that are actively engaged in the fight against terrorism—in particular, by disrupting and cutting off the finances of terrorist organisations. Since 11 September, the Government have ordered the freezing of the assets of more than 200 individuals and 100 organisations, undermining and preventing access to the sources of terrorist financing. We will continue to give priority to closing down all sources of such financing.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and pay tribute to her and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the leading role that they are playing. She will be aware that one of the difficulties faced by the international community is the different interpretations of what is a proscribed terrorist organisation. For example, the UK rightly proscribes Hezbollah, but the European Union does not as yet do so. Can she tell the House whether the moneys seized from these terrorist organisations are being retained by the Treasury? Would not a more sensible course of action be to ensure that the money seized from al-Qaeda is invested in Afghan reconstruction and that money from Hamas is used to help

    829
    Palestinian poverty reduction? I believe that such measures would be constructive and very welcome indeed.
    Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he knows, it is incredibly important to track down terrorist financing, whatever its source. The UK remains committed to doing exactly that, but of course, we also remain committed, for example, to the reconstruction of Afghanistan—one of the good causes to which he drew attention. We stand ready, together with our neighbours, to provide all the assistance and humanitarian relief that Afghanistan needs.
    My hon. Friend also drew attention to the use of funds that are frozen by the Treasury. Those funds are not the property of the UK Government and we certainly cannot decide arbitrarily to use them for good causes. However, we must, in conjunction with the international community, regularly review whether such freezing orders should still apply. I can tell the House that the UN sanctions committee decided last month to review the asset-freezing sanctions against the central bank of Afghanistan. It is our intention to work urgently and closely with the new, legitimate Afghan Government to return the bulk of the £70 million that had been frozen against the country's Government previously.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not reprehensible that a terrorist organisation that is probably the most murderous in the world and has killed tens of thousands of people and kidnapped many more, including most recently the brave presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt in Colombia—namely, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—is not a proscribed organisation under the terms of the Terrorism Act 2000? Nor is any murderous terrorist organisation in Latin America, such as Sendero Luminoso, proscribed under the 2000 Act. Is that not a scandal, and does it not fatally inhibit the vital work of Customs and Excise in freezing the assets of this murderous organisation, which is involved in drug dealing and kidnapping?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that a UN sanctions order must be carried out by consensus among the 15 members of the Security Council; it is, in effect, a political decision to freeze the assets of individuals, organisations or states and can be appealed against in the usual way by individuals or organisations. We must gain an international consensus in that forum to take such measures. That is what we are committed to doing against any organisation, individual or state in respect of which we can prove a link to terrorist financing, and we remain at the forefront of international efforts in that regard.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that the distinction between proscribed and other terrorist organisations is a shambles anyway, because non-proscribed organisations are also in receipt of such funds. We should congratulate those forces in our country that are doing something about this matter. May I press her on whether there have been discussions at an international level dealing with fiscal crime—primarily, such crime is money laundering in the name of terrorism
    830
    and organisations—and on whether we can now obtain extradition orders to bring back to this country those who are guilty of some of the crimes that we are fighting?
    Ruth Kelly: Before 11 September and subsequently, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of measures in the fight not only against terrorism but money laundering in general. We are working with the G7 in the international arena to develop measures and encourage countries to fulfil international standards against money laundering and terrorist financing. We are also working with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to ensure that they meet the tough international standards.
    Hon. Members know that we completed consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Bill last night. It will enable our authorities to take tough action against money laundering and reduce the complexities that were inherent in the system. We are therefore working domestically and internationally to crack down on money laundering and terrorist funding wherever it occurs.

    Investment
    Paul Holmes: What estimate he has made of the level of public sector net capital investment as a proportion of national income over the period of the first comprehensive spending review. [35749]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The figures, including the projection for the current year, which is the last year covered by the first comprehensive spending review, were set out in the pre-Budget report. They show that public sector net investment increased from 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1998–99 to 1.3 per cent. in 2001–02. That is an increase of £5.6 billion in real terms.
    Paul Holmes: I am sure that the Chief Secretary agrees that the Chancellor was right to criticise the Conservative Government for their shameful level of investment in public services between 1992 and 1997. However, Treasury figures show not only that the average percentage of GDP invested in public services was 1.5 per cent. a year from 1992 to 1997, but that that average was 0.6 per cent. between 1997 and 2002. That is less than half the Conservative Government's investment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Conservative record was shameful, the Labour record in the past five years is a disgrace, and that it is no wonder that public services such as the national health service and transport are in such a mess?
    Mr. Smith: We inherited a legacy from a Conservative Government who cut net public investment year on year. In our first five years, we doubled net public sector investment. This spring, such investment will be twice the level that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman has experienced the benefits of that in his constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said earlier, the junction 29A development has brought £47 million of new investment to the area. Shirebrook has meant £27 million of investment, generating thousands of

    831
    jobs in north Derbyshire. It is the biggest investment in the area since the pits were sunk, thanks to Labour government, not Liberal Democrat opposition.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Hon. Members could bring an unending list of projects worthy of capital expenditure to my right hon. Friend's attention. I shall present a petition for funding in my constituency to him next week. Nevertheless, doubling percentage expenditure, which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his initial answer, is an exceptional achievement of which we should be proud. The development of junction 29 is a phenomenal improvement to provisions in Chesterfield, North-east Derbyshire and Bolsover. Those improvements are much needed and are now being provided. Will he simply refuse to listen to moaning minnies who put an alternative viewpoint?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and commend him on his energetic efforts on behalf of his constituency. That is resulting in the benefits and schemes that he described. The contrast is simple: it is between a Government who believe in public investment and are substantially increasing it and a Conservative Government who cut it by an average of 15 per cent. a year in their last term in office. We are increasing it by 40 per cent. a year. That is a sharp contrast between Labour investment and Tory neglect.
    Mr. John Bercow: Since 1997, the Government have raised an extra £130,000 million in taxes, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that the lowest levels of net public investment as a share of national income since the second world war have occurred in the same period. Why?
    Mr. Smith: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have started by thanking us for all the tax cuts that this Government have brought in, notably the 3 percentage point cut on business. On levels of public investment, I make no apologies to the House. It is the Conservative party that should apologise. After five years of Labour in government, public sector net investment will be more than double the level that it was when the Tories left office. The reason for that is that we are increasing that investment, whereas they were cutting it. The Conservatives cut net investment by an average of 15 per cent. a year in their last term; we are increasing it by 40 per cent. a year.
    The people of this country are seeing the benefits of that investment not only in the programmes to which I have referred, but in the 245 modernisation schemes for accident and emergency units throughout the country that had been neglected by the Conservatives, in the 17,000 schools that have had repairs carried out, and in the 50 road schemes that are now under way. There is a very clear contrast between our investment and the Conservatives rundown.
    Lynne Jones: The Chancellor told the House a little while ago that Government debt was now around 30 per cent. of gross domestic product, compared with the Maastricht criterion of 60 per cent. of GDP. Does my right hon. Friend agree,
    832
    therefore, that the lack of availability of public capital should not be a factor in determining the value for money of private finance initiatives?
    Mr. Smith: The private finance initiative and public-private partnership programme is additional to conventional public sector investment, which, as I have said, we have doubled during this spending review period. On the level of debt that we inherited, the 44 per cent. of GDP that the Tories left us was crippling the country through debt interest repayments. It is because we took the tough decisions that we did, and because we will stick to our tough fiscal disciplines, that we are saving £8 billion a year on the cost of debt interest. That is enabling us to make the record investment in public services from which health, transport, the fight against crime and our other front-line priorities are benefiting.

    Business Taxation and Regulation
    Patrick Mercer: What recent representations he has received from the British Chambers of Commerce regarding business taxation and regulation. [35750]
    John Baron: What recent representations he has received from the Federation of Small Businesses regarding business taxation and regulation of small businesses. [35751]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): As is normal in the run-up to the Budget, the Government have received a number of representations from business organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Whenever I am in the chambers of commerce in either Retford or Newark, I receive constant questions about the burden of red tape that is being imposed on small businesses. May I remind the Minister of the Chancellor's promise given before the last election? He said:
    "We will not impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
    Has that promise been kept? Has the level of red tape risen or fallen?
    Dawn Primarolo: The answer to the—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was going to get up again. He bobs up and down all the time, and he confused me. If he will allow me to answer the question first, I am sure that he will be able to come in later.
    The promise has been kept on a number of fronts. First, on the lowering of tax burdens and the lowering of pressure on small businesses through regulations, the Government have cut the tax bill for those small businesses and made a number of reforms. For example, we announced in the pre-Budget report the flat-rate payment for VAT, which will be enormously helpful to 300,000 small businesses. Furthermore, the Carter review, which is currently out for discussion, takes forward the

    833
    discussions on how we can ensure that small businesses can operate efficiently with the minimum amount of requirements on them to comply with legislation.
    Mr. Baron: As the number of new business regulations introduced by the Government stands at a record high, and as the findings of a survey last year by the largest employment firm in the country showed that employers spend on average the equivalent of one and a half days of the working week administering employment law and dealing with personnel issues, will the Minister accept the CBI's charge that the Government are a regulatory Government?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman does not mention that many regulations are about decent wages for employees, paid holiday and time off for employees to attend to family matters, and that many of them are requested by businesses to help them in their environment. The Government must strike a fair balance between the rights of employees, which are good for small and large businesses, and ensuring that businesses can operate efficiently without the burden being too great.
    As the hon. Gentleman well knows—he might care to check the Inland Revenue website—a massive programme of regulatory reform is under way. It is examining everything that is requested of business to see whether it is still necessary, whether it can be streamlined and how we can ensure that the rights of business and employees are respected, and that businesses can flourish in an environment that is suitably regulated, not over-regulated.

    EU Growth and Stability Pact
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the operation of the EU growth and stability pact. [35742]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The United Kingdom believes that a prudent interpretation of the disciplines of the stability and growth pact should take into account the economic cycle, sustainability of debt and the important role of public investment. Our proposals for that and for reforms in European labour, product and capital markets on which we seek to make headway at the Barcelona summit are contained in the paper on European economic reform that the Treasury published today. Reforms are necessary so that Europe can successfully meet the challenge of large-scale employment creation, internal enlargement and global competition. Copies of the paper are already available in the Vote Office.
    To increase competitive pressures and drive down prices for everyday goods across the European Union, we propose measures to open up markets in energy services, agriculture and the financial sector, and for a more rigorous, modernised competition policy and a reformed state aid regime. To tackle the low levels of venture capital in the EU and the high costs of banking for both individuals and businesses, we urge the creation of a single financial services market and a risk capital action plan to improve the provision of finance to small and start-out companies. To adopt a more strategic approach
    834
    to research and development across the EU, we should develop better links between the science base and industry, and introduce an innovation-friendly Community patent.
    We propose a debate at Barcelona on how best to reform EU labour markets, to gain the conditions for full employment and to tackle social exclusion. To expand transatlantic economic partnerships, we propose a Ceccini style report that would set out in detail the basis for growth, prosperity and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, including a wide-ranging effort to end the remaining industrial tariffs multilaterally, remove unnecessary non-tariff barriers, and increase competition and develop more effective ways of pre-empting damaging transatlantic trade disputes.
    Those measures complement our proposals to reform the stability and growth pact. As the White Paper says, being in Europe and leading in Europe is right for Britain and for British interests.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for his full statement, and congratulate him on advocating a more flexible and prudent interpretation of the growth and stability pact. Does he agree that what is required is sustainable economic growth throughout the whole of the European Union? Will he give more details about precisely what the Government will argue for at the Barcelona summit?
    Mr. Brown: If the world economy is to grow faster over the next few years, every continent must make its contribution. America must keep markets open, Japan must have structural banking reform and Europe must have the modernised labour, capital and product markets that we suggest. If we are to move ahead, there should be the reforms in the stability and growth pact that we propose. One of the messages that I took from the last European Council summit, where we were successful in overturning the Commission's recommendation against the United Kingdom and other countries, is that most countries now see the advantage of taking into account public investment, debt sustainability and the economic cycle in making decisions about what is essential for stability in the fiscal regime. I believe that Europe is ready to make reforms in that direction as well.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Is it not utterly disgraceful that a substantial White Paper such as this, setting out what the Chancellor clearly regards as an important policy initiative, should not be the subject of a separate statement in the House, allowing a proper opportunity for questioning and scrutiny and subject to all the normal courtesies such as advance notification of what is contained in the statement? That would have enabled us to begin to engage in the intelligent and open debate about the future of our relationship with the European Union for which the Government constantly call, for which the Minister for Europe called on the radio this morning, and which the Government do everything to talk about but nothing to provide or facilitate.
    Is this not utterly inconsistent with the Government's very recent undertaking to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, following the publication of the third report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, that they would no longer issue documents of this kind without

    835
    first making full and comprehensive statements to the House? Is it not yet further evidence of the Government's complete contempt for the House of Commons?
    As for the substance of the document, have we not heard all this before? After the Lisbon summit, the Prime Minister, no less, claimed:
    "The Council marks a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction—away from heavy-handed intervention and regulation, towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition."—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 21.]
    Before the Stockholm summit, the Government claimed:
    "All member states will press the Commission to take action that will make a difference to the way Europe is regulated. Reducing red tape for business start-ups and encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs means more new businesses and more new jobs."
    Yet, as we know, despite all those warm words nothing meaningful—nothing of any significance—happened. Indeed, the Commissioner responsible for the single market, Commissioner Bolkestein, himself said:
    "We're seeing too much poetry and not enough motion. It is not enough to issue these elevated statements and then not act upon them."
    Is the Chancellor not even remotely aware of the irony of the fact that he and the Government call, in this document, for the European Union to cut unnecessary and expensive regulations, when the Government of whom the Chancellor is such a prominent member introduced into this country last year—according to the House of Commons Library—4,642 new regulations? That is not just a record number of regulations, but a 50 per cent. increase on the number introduced in 1997. Is it any wonder that the British Chambers of Commerce has said:
    "The bottom line is that the sheer quantity of red tape on business is damaging our economy, stifling enterprise, job creation and economic growth"?
    How can the Chancellor have the gall to lecture the European Union on the need to reduce regulation in this document, when his Government impose burdens on business in this country that cripple its ability to create the wealth on which we all depend?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be delighted to answer the shadow Chancellor's points, although it seems that the Conservatives wish to avoid the subject of foxhunting by discussing Euro-baiting.
    There is a lack of proportion in the shadow Chancellor's complaints. We sent the document to him an hour before Question Time, as we sent it to the Liberal Democrats. We have made it clear in the document that we are bringing together the announcements made by Ministers in past months in the run-up to the Barcelona summit. It is a bit much for the shadow Chancellor to complain that there is nothing new in the document, and then to say that there must be a statement because a statement is about new policy.
    As far as the shadow Chancellor's individual points are concerned, we are the Government who secured changes in European policy—on taxation, with the savings directive, on value added tax on e-commerce, and on moving forward the single market in financial services. He should welcome the Lamfalussy report, which made a number of recommendations on that matter. We have persuaded the European Commission to look again at the question of state aids, and it is looking again at the
    836
    question of competition policy. The takeovers directive is being re-examined as a result of actions that we and other countries have taken.
    Therefore, as far as economic reform and the single market are concerned, we are pushing forward with the agenda necessary to opening up the single market. Conservative Members supported the start of the single market in the 1980s, and they should support the measures that we are proposing to complete it. However, whenever the word "Europe" is mentioned, Opposition Members say that they are against anything that is being done. They cannot bring themselves to support positive measures. They should welcome the fact that we are going to Barcelona with an aggressive and dynamic agenda for a job-creating Europe that is socially inclusive, and that opens up labour, product and capital markets to the benefit of British jobs, businesses and people.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Will my right hon. Friend say how far the stability and growth of European economies depend on recovery in the world economy? In particular, what would be the impact if Japan sank into a 1930s-type depression, as foreseen in yesterday's edition of The Guardian? That newspaper ran an article headed "The Crunch: Japan's Credit Rating Could Fall Below Botswana's".
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, and he has looked at issues concerning the global economy. It is absolutely clear that we need the radical structural reform of the banking sector that the Japanese Government have promised. It is also clear that America must keep markets open. Those in America who wish to resort to protectionism in certain sectors should be dissuaded from doing so.
    However, it is also clear that we must balance pro-expansion fiscal and monetary policies with structural reform in the European Union. That is why it is important that a message is sent by European leaders at Barcelona that they will move ahead with opening up the energy and financial services markets, and the utility markets as a whole. I believe that we will get that message from Barcelona.
    Matthew Taylor: Is not it obvious that the Chancellor should have made a statement to the House and not adopted this awkward procedure, by which the Government have messed around with Question Time? That was made all the more obvious by the Chancellor's speed reading as he tried to get through a substantive statement in a matter of moments. The Chancellor's speed reading was exceeded only by that of both sets of Opposition spokesmen. We had to try and get through four documents that we received only a matter of minutes before the Chancellor made his statement—not the hour that he suggested. Moreover, we received notification that a statement was to be made only through the pages of The Times.
    The document contains, in paragraph 1.13, a substantive apparent change in Government policy, in connection with the Government's approach to the growth and stability pact. Previously, the suggestion was that the Government supported the pact, but a rather different interpretation appears in the document, which is that the Government will support the pact only if it is interpreted in what they call a "prudent" way. Presumably, that means

    837
    a way that suits the Chancellor. If it does not mean that, will he explain what is meant by the word "prudent", and how it differs from any previous interpretation placed on the matter by others, not least the European Union? Will he specify what is meant by the passage that states that the UK continues to discuss the matter with its EU partners?
    Are the Government seeking reform of the growth and stability pact? What is the interpretation on which they are seeking agreement? What meetings have the Government had, and when does the Chancellor intend to report to the House either about what he is seeking to achieve, or whether he has achieved it?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the Liberal party's shadow Chancellor. The Government offer statements to the House of Commons when new policy is being announced. There is no new policy in the document, which brings together all the announcements that we have made in relation to the Barcelona economic reform summit. I believe that that will be to the benefit of the House, and the country, as we proceed to Barcelona. He is utterly wrong about the growth and stability pact. Since 1997, I have been making it clear, and I believe that he should support this, as his party supports increases in public investment, that we want a pact that takes account of the economic cycle, promotes public investment—and therefore, in certain circumstances, borrowing to support that—and deals with debt sustainability. When Italy, for example, has debts that are 110 per cent. of gross domestic product, while Britain's amount to only 30 per cent., it is clear that the treatment given to each country under the pact will and should be different.
    I spoke about the three reforms of the growth and stability pact at the European Council only this week. More and more countries recognise that the procedure adopted by the Commission a few days ago was not the best way forward. Our position arises from the principle that these are matters that can improve the pact, and I believe that we are making progress. In trying to claim that this is new policy, when I have made it absolutely clear over the past few years that there was a need for reform of the growth and stability pact, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is out of touch with what is happening in Europe.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the Chancellor for his statement, and I understand that there are two key elements to the stability and growth that he envisages for Europe. One is the reform of state aid in other countries. How does he think that we can tackle the anti-competitiveness in certain countries' shipbuilding industries, for example? Will he also consider the financial services markets, which are the other key element in the pact? We want a single financial services market, but how, when there are regulators such as Dr. Müller in Germany, who completely goes against the risk-based approach that this country has adopted and that is being so ably promoted by the Economic Secretary and the Financial Services Authority, can we achieve—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be brief.
    Mr. Brown: Commissioner Monti has agreed to a further review of state aid, with a view to modernisation in line with the practices of the modern world. I believe that that is long overdue.
    838
    I hope that all parties will welcome the Lamfalussy report. A few days ago, a new report from the business community said that the gains from opening up financial services could amount to about 0.5 per cent. additional GDP across the European Union. British insurance firms, banks and financial services firms would benefit from the opening up of the industries in other countries, and we, with our great success in that field, are in a position to gain maximum benefit. We will continue to pursue the reform of the financial services industry, as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Why does the document call for greater transparency and accountability in the World Trade Organisation, for example, but not mention the more essential issue of accountability at the European Central Bank? Does the Chancellor recall making a speech on this subject last spring? Has he now dropped it from his agenda?
    Mr. Brown: No, we have also discussed the future of the European Central Bank and I have welcomed the fact that the bank, which did not use to publish comprehensive minutes of its meetings is now doing so, in line with the practice of the Bank of England. Increasingly, it is making itself more accountable to both the Governments and the people of Europe. It must, of course, remain an independent central bank. Those of us who supported the making independent of the Bank of England recognise the importance of the European Central Bank being independent of the decision-making processes of politicians.
    Ms Oona King: Is it not self-evident that we need rules relating to ourselves and our European partners on debt, and that those must take account of debt sustainability, and is not the essential point that, if we have political influence in Europe, we can renegotiate the rules to favour the interests of our country, and is it not the case that the Government can do that, whereas the Opposition can only squeal and squawk from the sidelines? In doing so, not only are they not acting in this country's interests, but they are being profoundly unpatriotic.
    Mr. Brown: Indeed. At the European Council only a few days ago, we wrote into the German and Portuguese conclusions the importance of the debt reduction that they had agreed. Debt sustainability is now being recognised by the European Council as a major issue that must be tackled. I would have hoped that both sides of the House would support our proposed reforms of the growth and stability pact. They are good for growth, good for jobs and good for public investment. Of course, it was the previous Conservative Government who negotiated the stability pact in the first place. That pact needs reforming, and I hope that both sides of the House will support such reform.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: I congratulate the Chancellor on the part that he has recently played, as I urged him to do, in undermining the so-called European growth and stability pact. Of course, to apply it in a recession one has to burn the books of Maynard Keynes and rescue the shroud of Philip Snowden from the Labour mausoleum. Does the

    839
    Chancellor agree that strict application of the growth and stability pact's rules during a recession would make it much more difficult for a British Government to deal with rising and serious unemployment, as Germany is finding today?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, in considering the economic events that should form part of our discussion, has yet to mention the return to the gold standard in 1925.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend knows all about it.
    Mr. Brown: It is a lesson for economic policy making.
    As far as the growth and stability pact is concerned, I agree with the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) that, as Keynesian economics teaches us, the pact should be reformed to recognise the economic cycle. The important point is that last summer, when the stability pact code was rewritten, account was taken of the economic cycle for perhaps the first time in the Council's deliberations on that matter. That is one reason why the Council felt unable to take action against Germany and Portugal in the past few days. Reform of the growth and stability pact is now accepted more widely than just in the United Kingdom, and such reform should extend to recognising the importance of public investment. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not one of those Conservative Members who use growth and stability pact discussions simply to push anti-European prejudices.
    Roger Casale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Britain can take the lead in Europe in economic reform, and the reforms that he has discussed will be strongly beneficial to British companies and jobs and the British economy—not least in areas where we have a comparative advantage, such as energy and financial services. In looking to make those structural changes, will he also continue to press—as he said that he would—to make the stability pact more flexible? Does he accept that many on the Government Benches will say to him that we did not liberate this country from years of cuts in public services imposed by the Conservative party only to see public investment restraints reimposed as a result of the growth and stability pact?
    Mr. Brown: It is by pursuing sensible monetary and fiscal policies that we achieve both growth and future prosperity through rising investment. In addition to our proposed reforms in the growth and stability pact, our management of monetary policy, the European Union and the past year's interest rate reductions have also been very important in creating the conditions for the re-establishment of growth. We should remember not only
    840
    that public investment is rising at the right time, which the Opposition have opposed throughout; we have also had the fastest growth in the G7 in the past year, the lowest inflation and interest rates for 40 years, and for the first time since the second world war, unemployment in Britain is lower than in Japan, America and Europe. I hope that both sides of the House will welcome that.
    Mr. David Ruffley: In the context of the White Paper, could the Chancellor explain why the United Kingdom has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league since 1997?
    Mr. Brown: Under the Conservative Government, we were 23rd in the world competitiveness league to which the hon. Gentleman referred. [Interruption.] It is important to point out what happened under the Conservatives. I could quote all the surveys conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and other companies in the past few months, which show that we are the leading location for investment in Europe. The hon. Gentleman asked his question in the way that he did because he cannot escape the fact that we have had the fastest growth in the G7 in the past year, the lowest inflation for 40 years and employment rising in a way that it is not in other countries.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an irony that it was Germany that insisted on creating the growth and stability pact and is now in danger of being bitten by its own dog? Does he also agree that it is an irony that he himself intervened, very sensibly, to prevent the growth and stability pact strictures from being applied to Germany, and avoided its being criticised? Does he also agree that if Germany is to get out of its present recession—today's figures show that its output actually fell in the fourth quarter—it will have to break through the constraints of the growth and stability pact, which shows that the pact is nonsense as currently formulated?
    Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept that. We support the growth and stability pact. We support the co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy—that is absolutely essential—but we support the prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!] Exactly. Unfortunately, Conservative Members did not insist on that interpretation when they were in government.
    The reason that a prudent interpretation of the growth and stability pact is now being accepted is that, in our interpretation, it does recognise the importance of public investment, of the economic cycle and of taking debt into account. The growth and stability pact that we support is one that will take all these things into account. Therefore I am not against a growth and stability pact. I am in favour of a growth and stability pact, and one that takes account of public investment.

Business of the House
12.56 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I should be delighted. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing us to take his time for the question.
MONDAY 4 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition Day for the minority parties. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Government Support for Mr. Mittal and the Domestic Steel Industry" followed by a debate entitled "Process of Consent for New Nuclear Power Stations in Scotland and Wales". Both debates arise on a motion in the names of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
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 provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 11 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 14 MARCH—Debate on women and equality on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Monday 18 March there will be a debate on hunting. In the Queen's Speech we promised that we would enable a free vote to take place on the future of hunting with dogs. The Government will table a motion enabling the House to express its view in a free vote between the three options. A similar vote will take place in the House of Lords.
Following those votes my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs intends to bring forward, before the Easter recess, our proposals to resolve the issue.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 13 March, there will be a debate relating to European transport policy in European Standing Committee A and a debate relating to cosmetic products in European Standing Committee C.
[Wednesday 13 March 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 11932/01, Commission White Paper; European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide.
842
12597/01, Draft Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xv, (2001–02).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 14 November 2001; Amended draft Council Directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-vii; HC 152-xix (2001–02).]
Finally, may I make a personal statement regarding my answer at last Business questions to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) a fortnight ago? At the time, I said that
"there was no disagreement…between Mr. Sixsmith and Jo Moore",
which I accept is difficult to reconcile with all that we have since learned. More seriously, I said that
"there was no such e-mail".—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 314.]
The Mirror has since recorded that it was misled as to the contents of the e-mail and that it was not addressed to Jo Moore. But there was an e-mail. I would not have used those words had I been aware of that at the time.
I enjoy our Thursday exchanges and I always seek to be accurate, if combative, in my replies. I regret that on the last occasion I was not in possession of accurate information. I apologise to the House for having, in all good faith, misled it, and to The Mirror for having done it an injustice.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. I also thank him for what he has just said so graciously, but may I suggest, to round off that little matter, that he may want to come to the House on another occasion, following the inquiries that I have no doubt he is continuing to make as to the source of the misinformation that he was so regrettably given and the actions that he and the Cabinet propose to take to ensure that such things do not happen again? That would serve not only the House, but the Government—not to mention the right hon. Gentleman himself.
We have heard the announcement that the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill will be debated on Monday. We have been told that one day is being allocated to consider that Bill on Report and Third Reading. The House must be aware—if not, it is about to become aware—that 32 clauses and seven schedules to that Bill were not even considered in Committee, and that some 68 amendments have already been tabled for debate on Report stage of what is a 92 clause and 13 schedule Bill.
Will the Leader of the House reconsider, even at this stage, whether one day is remotely adequate to consider that number of amendments to a Bill of that size? Will he also give an undertaking that, if any Government amendment is tabled to that Bill between now and Monday, further time will made available properly to consider any such amendment? I hope that he will give that issue very serious consideration, because that important Bill contains some very controversial elements and it must receive proper consideration.

843
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said:
"It is not a rule of the House, but a courtesy, that Ministers give as much warning as possible of any statement that they are going to make. I encourage Ministers to do that. If there is any difficulty or short notice in future, I can use my discretion, but I would rather encourage Ministers to give out their statements well in advance."—[Official Report, 27 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 709.]
Already, less than 24 hours after you said that, Mr. Speaker, we have had the unedifying spectacle of a humiliated Chancellor, who, having tried to slip out a White Paper under the guise of Question Time, was then obliged to turn a question into a pseudo-statement; but even then he gave no advance warning to my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor of the contents of what he was going to say, which he then garbled and babbled out at the Dispatch Box in a properly embarrassed manner.
What on earth can you now do, Mr. Speaker? In your typically generous way, you suggested to the House yesterday that you expected Ministers to respond to what you had said, but you said that you could use your discretion. Not only do I ask the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that he will use his influence to ensure that we do not have any more of this, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look again at the discretion that you said you might use, because the House is now being abused on a daily basis by the most senior members of the Government who seemingly do not care any more whether the conventions of the House are adhered to. That is regrettable and demeaning to everyone involved, not least to the Chancellor himself on this occasion.
We have now heard the confirmation of what has been widely speculated on in press: we will have debates on the subject of saving foxes, hares and failed Secretaries of State. The debate will have to take that form, will it not? We now know—I want the Leader of the House to confirm or to deny this—that there is a causal link between the parliamentary Labour party's support for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the not coincidental announcement almost immediately afterwards that some raw meat is to be thrown to the parliamentary Labour party.
Will the Leader of the House confirm categorically and on the record that there is no question of any link whatever between the support given by the parliamentary Labour party to the Transport Secretary and the almost immediate announcement of a debate on hunting? If it were ever to emerge that there was any truth in that, it would be seen as the most cynical ploy. It must be a perfect example of the countryside being sacrificed to a Secretary of State at bay.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Let me deal with his points one at a time.
First, I will continue to reflect on anything useful that I am told with regard to the matter that I dealt with in my statement. However, the matter has been discussed exhaustively in the past three days. I am a humble man and there is nothing that I can usefully add to what has already been said.
On the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, many of the amendments that have been tabled for next week are in the Government's name and are of a technical character. Indeed, in some cases, they are on issues that have been raised by others, to which we want to respond positively.
844
We are confident that the Bill can be properly dealt with in one day if the House is businesslike in its approach. I hope that we can deliver on that next week.
I am strongly in favour of making statements when it is appropriate and necessary to do so. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the four and a half years since 1997, this Government have made more statements to the House than were made in any four-and-a-half-year period under the preceding Conservative Government. When I was the shadow spokesman on international affairs, they frequently produced documents on Europe without even the courtesy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just given the House of an additional half-hour of questioning.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, who is fecund in his imagination, on having managed to bring the Secretary of State for Transport into the discussion on hunting. [Interruption.] I would not deny the right hon. Gentleman the credit for having done so. On this occasion, he is hunting a red herring—not worthy of me, but I could not resist it. I assure the House that the decision was taken last week, well before anything was said by Mr. Sixsmith to The Sunday Times, and well before any discussion in the House on the Secretary of State.
Mr. James Wray: May I draw attention to early-day motion 901, on biochemical weapons?
[That this House calls for the Government to come to an agreement with NATO to declassify the information regarding biochemical weapons taken from the aggressors during World War Two which were dumped off the shores of several European countries around the North Sea and in the Baltic; notes that the 50 year period under which such information is kept private is now finished; calls on the Government, other European countries and other responsible nations to make considerable efforts to combat the pollution that is caused by the sunken vessels which are affecting marine life around European shores; notes that the Russians are already taken action on this issue, and believes that the British Government should do likewise.]
I understand that more than 50 years ago, the Americans, the Russians and the British, after seizing trophies from the aggressors in world war two, put biochemical weapons into 65 ships and dumped them all over European waters, some in the Baltic sea, some in the North sea and some off the shores of Sweden and Denmark. As the 50-year period of classification is over, is it possible to have a debate on getting NATO to agree to declassify this information? The Russians have already taken action and found that some of the vessels are leaking Yperite, which is mustard gas, into the marine environment. They are very concerned about it. If that is allowed to continue it could affect three or four generations.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, which is clearly of real concern to him. I shall convey his comments about declassifying the documents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I saw some of the documentation when I was in my previous post and the consensus of international scientific advice is that dumping on the sea bed does not pose a threat to the

845
environment. That in part reflects the judgment on the extent of dispersal, should there be leaks of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. I shall draw the question of declassification to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his gracious apology. I hope that other members of the Cabinet will follow his good example in future. Does he recall that in the debate on the Committee on Standards and Privileges report on 13 February, he promised, at column 222, to reflect on the issue that I raised with him about the compatibility of the ministerial code with the code of behaviour of Members of the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to make a statement on his reflections? Can he give us any indication of when he may be able to make a statement on that review? Who is undertaking the review of the code of ministerial conduct? Can we be assured that there will also be a parallel review of the code relating to ministerial special advisers?
In view of the admission on Tuesday by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that he intervened to stipulate the departure terms of Mr. Martin Sixsmith, insisting that Mr. Sixsmith was not to be in receipt of any employment in the civil service in future, does the Leader of the House accept that there is a potential conflict even with the existing code, let alone with the statements made since about the code, particularly in relation to the obligations of a good employer? In view of the substantial evidence that has been added to today that the Secretary of State insisted on equality of treatment as between Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith, can the Leader of the House tell us whether a similar stipulation was applied to her resignation—that is, that she should never be employed in the civil service again?
Mr. Cook: I of course recall the promise that I made to the hon. Gentleman during our debate on the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Indeed, I predicted this morning that the hon. Gentleman would be vigilant in reminding me of it. This is not a matter that can move overnight; as I told the House, we wanted time to consider carefully the serious points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I assure him that I am certainly reflecting on it—indeed, I hope that it is not an offence to the English language if I say that I am actively reflecting on it. When I am ready to say something, I will come back to the House and make sure that the hon. Gentleman is advised about it.
As for the Government being a good employer, of course all members of the Cabinet are under an obligation to be good employers in their Department. However, all Members of the House—particularly Conservative Members, with their knowledge of business interests—are also aware that the duty of a good employer is to make sure that the Department can function and is not undermined by any employee within that Department. In addition, a good employer is required, perfectly reasonably, to make sure that people in the Department are fulfilling the contract to which they signed up. The resignations the other week have been trawled over extensively. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the
846
statement by the permanent secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, to which it would be unwise for any of the rest of us to add.
David Winnick: Although I welcome the debate on hunting with dogs, is my right hon. Friend aware that most Labour Members—certainly not Conservative Members—would like, by the end of this Parliament, to have in place a ban on hunting with dogs, a barbaric practice that should have been banned long ago? If, at a later stage, this House votes for a measure that the House of Lords will almost certainly vote against, would the Government be willing to use the Parliament Act? Even if only a minority of people in the country were in favour of a ban, the view of my colleagues and me would be no different, but there is a large majority in favour of such a ban. It is in this Parliament that such a practice should come to an end.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware that this issue arouses strong feelings on both sides of the House. I also fully respect the strong views of my hon. Friend which he has held sincerely and deeply for a long time. That is why the Government are providing the opportunity, which we promised in the Queen's Speech, of a free vote to enable the House to express its view. I recognise that it is unlikely that the House is likely to express a different view from when it last voted. It may or may not be the case, however, that in the House of Lords a different conclusion is reached when the Lords consider the three options. After that, the Minister for Rural Affairs will consider how to take the matter forward and find a way of reaching a conclusion, which was the commitment that we made in our manifesto. Until we have made that progress, it would be unwise to speculate on what we will do in the event of failure.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is one item of unfinished business arising from the Jo Moore affair, and I do not thereby refer to the impending reshuffling of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? I refer to the leak inquiry which was commissioned many weeks ago to find out who did the public service of revealing to the world the appalling e-mail that Jo Moore put out on 11 September, from which everything else flowed. May we have a statement from the Cabinet Office as to how this leak inquiry is progressing? May we know whether, if the culprit—so-called—is eventually identified, that person will suffer the same fate as Martin Sixsmith for daring to expose the truth about the twisters in the DTLR.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that only one matter remains from the Jo Moore affair. I will hold him and his entire party to that statement.
It is my understanding that there was no particular inquiry within the Transport Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I merely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] It could be that I am over-extending myself, but I would not expect such an inquiry to produce a particular result. What is important is that we make a success of ensuring that the Transport Department works together to meet the needs

847
of the travelling public. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is that, rather than a leak last September, that concerns people.
Mr. Tony Banks: The suggestion that the debates on hunting are a sop that has been flung to the Back Benches is journalistic tosh and demeaning to many people both in the House and outside who have campaigned for years to get a ban on hunting with dogs. It was in our manifesto and the Queen's Speech. To link it to the Secretary of State for Transport is fanciful in the extreme and total nonsense.
The process of having debates on hunting is getting rather boring. As my right hon. Friend said, we know the will of the House of Commons. Why cannot we just revive the Bill that went through the House in the last Session? We could do that quickly and move it to the House of Lords. If it decides to reject it, it will not be Government who invoke the Parliament Act because it will automatically come into force. If my right hon. Friend or any of his colleagues think that there is a soft option called the middle way, they are deceiving themselves.
Mr. Cook: Knowing my hon. Friend as well as I have for many years, I assure him that I would never imagine that he would accept a sop, and no one is dreaming of offering him one. He has genuine and sincere views, which I respect. I ask him, though, to respect the views of those of us who genuinely and sincerely support the middle way.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to read to the interesting report published by the highly prestigious and authoritative National Audit Office, which shows that Labour's policy on the new deal is a complete flop? Will he arrange for a debate, with the Prime Minister present, on the matter so that the Government can apologise for the enormous waste of taxpayers' money that is so clearly set out in the report today?
Mr. Cook: I have seen a summary of the NAO's conclusion. I remind the House that more than 250,000 young people have entered employment through the new deal, as is set out in the report. The NAO makes highly speculative calculations about how many of those were a result of the new deal. If the figures are as low as it claims, it is difficult for me to reconcile them with the experience in my constituency. If the figures are right, they must relate to West Lothian only and nowhere else in Britain. The new deal has been important in delivering one of the remarkable achievements of the Government, which is a cut in youth unemployment by two thirds from the level that we inherited from the Conservative party. Against that figure, we will take no lecture from the Conservative party on youth unemployment.
Mr. Eric Martlew: On hunting, one must presume that a Bill will be introduced either in this Session or the next. My right hon. Friend told us that it will be decided on a free vote. Can he assure us that that will be the case and that Government Whips will not ask Ministers to go through the Lobbies?
Mr. Cook: I can unequivocally give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, if he looks at the voting record in
848
the last Parliament, he will observe that Ministers voted on two of the three options. I suspect that that will be the case this time.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Can the Leader of the House give me guidance on the crisis that is developing at the heart of the Government's policy on energy, especially as it is reflected in Scotland? This week, the Minister for Industry and Energy, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), is quoted as saying that the building of a power station in Scotland
"will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."
Conversely, the Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), said:
"it wouldn't be for a legislature which has powers devolved from Westminster to then thwart the policy of a UK government on areas which are clearly reserved to Westminster, such as energy".

Scotland cannot afford that developing crisis. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to resolve it?
Mr. Cook: I anticipate that we will have a full opportunity to explore those issues next week, at which time the hon. Gentleman can put his questions to my colleague who will be taking part in that debate. Whatever the legal and constitutional position, surely the important issue is that Westminster and Edinburgh work together to ensure that they find a solution.
John McDonnell: The President of the United States of America seems inevitably to be moving towards war against Iraq, and this morning the Prime Minister made a statement in support of the President's "axis of evil" speech. May I ask that, before any decision is taken on this country joining military action, there will be a parliamentary debate and that any action will be the subject of a vote of this House?
Mr. Cook: It is important to remind ourselves that, despite the best efforts of the media to confuse the point, no decision has been taken in the United States or anywhere else on the question of military action. Indeed, if my hon. Friend looks closely at what the Prime Minister said in that interview, he will see that my right hon. Friend indeed supported action against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on which I would imagine all Members would support him, but made no commitment to military action in that connection, either against Iraq or anywhere else. Of course, in the event of the kind of outcome on which my hon. Friend speculates, there would be full discussion in the House. It is not something that could be done in secret, and would not be done in secret.
Angela Watkinson: The Leader of the House will recall the exchange on Tuesday between the Transport Secretary and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on the subject of congestion charging, in which the hon. Lady called for "this ridiculous plan" to be subject to
"a full public inquiry and environmental audit".
In his response, the Secretary of State said:
"under the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 we are not allowed to deal with it."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 573.]

849
I understand that the Government have a range of powers under that Act, not least including the matter of exemptions. Will the Leader of the House say when the Secretary of State will return to the Chamber to enable the matter to be debated fully?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend will be answering questions next week, and obviously that question can be put to him. The hon. Lady will be aware from her research that the Government's role in this is very limited. It is a matter for the Mayor to bring forward his proposals, but as she may also be aware, we have expressed the view that it would of course help to ensure full public consultation and consensus around the proposals if the Mayor, as is open to him, were to hold a public inquiry into them.
Jane Griffiths: I look forward to joining my right hon. Friend and hon. Members on both sides of the House in voting in due course for a total ban on hunting. However, on this occasion I would ask whether he could find an opportunity for the House to address itself to another matter: sex and death. He will know that the incidence of chlamydia in this country is terrifyingly high, and that the Government have carried out very useful pilot schemes on screening for the disease. Does he also know that chlamydia ruins fertility, destroys marriages, and because it causes ectopic pregnancy, kills up to 10 women a year? Can we find time to debate the issue and Government action against this silent killer?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profound and real danger to so many of our young people. The growth in sexually transmitted disease among young people is a matter of concern to all parties in the House. That is why the Government produced only a few months ago their national sexual health strategy. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department of Health are pursuing that vigorously, and I shall draw their attention to my hon. Friend's interest.
Pete Wishart: Is the Leader of the House in a position to tell us who will respond for the Government in the Opposition day debate in the name of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on nuclear power, given that we have heard that there is confusion at the heart of government between the Minister of State in the Scotland Office and the Industry and Energy Minister? Perhaps I could helpfully suggest that one opened the debate and the other closed it, and we could see how the debate develops.
Mr. Cook: Since it was at 10.15 this morning that, rather late, the SNP and Plaid Cymru informed us of the subject of next week's debate, I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about speakers. If next time they have an Opposition day they give us the normal notice, the night before, I will be able to answer in good time.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Licensed killing for fun is simply unacceptable. My right hon. Friend may support the middle way but, with respect, he is in a tiny minority. Why do we need to March the troops to the top
850
of the hill yet again when the view of the House of Commons is as plain as a pikestaff? On 18 March, instead of having a completely useless and meaningless indicative vote, why do we not take the Bill passed by the House of Commons in the last Session, debate it, vote on it, and send it to the House of Lords? If the Lords reject it, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) says, it would automatically become law in this Session. We should not continue the farce until 2003–04, when people outside the House and the majority of those inside it want the matter resolved now.
Mr. Cook: I have been pressed repeatedly in business questions for several weeks to schedule a debate on hunting, and I cannot say that I have been overwhelmed by gratitude for having responded to the demand. As for my position, my hon. Friend and I have in our time both been part of tiny minorities; that did not make us feel at the time that either of us was necessarily wrong. It is entirely possible that when he considers the options, my hon. Friend will feel that the Bill that was presented in the last Parliament is the way forward, and no one has excluded it as such. However, many of those who were involved in the debate on that legislation, including some who pressed for a ban, have perceived ways in which that Bill could be amended. That will require further consideration and should not be ruled out at the start.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Leader of the House accept that to many people the debate on 18 March shows a Government with the most extraordinarily twisted priorities? At a time when the Government are about to dismantle the Fleet Air Arm, the transport system is in chaos, there is a serious shortage of teachers, and the hospital trusts and social services in my constituency are underfunded to the tune of more than £20 million and unable to deliver the services they should, is not this spiteful and reckless attack on the rights of minorities a total waste of time and an irresponsible delusion of public opinion?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman and I have both been Members of Parliament for a long time and we both know that those on either side of the House can produce their own list of important matters that the House should debate. I would like the House to have more opportunity to debate the fact that this country has the fastest growth of any of the major economies, the lowest inflation in Europe, the lowest unemployment for a generation, and the biggest investment in health and education of any of the G7 countries. The totality of a parliamentary year provides opportunities for us to debate matters of deep public concern, and whatever view he takes of hunting, I am sure that he, as a fair-minded Member, admits that it is the subject of genuine public concern.
Dr. Brian Iddon: On 14 February, Channel 4 transmitted a programme that showed the application within the national health service of futile care theories. That is when medical staff make subjective judgments about their patients that can lead to death by dehydration and starvation—procedures legitimised in 1993 by the Bland judgment. Rather than the courts and the medical profession leading the debate, is it not high time Parliament began to debate that difficult area of policy?
Mr. Cook: That sensitive and delicate issue has been raised on a number of occasions. I fully understand the

851
sincerity with which my hon. Friend raises the question, but I have always taken the view—it must be a personal judgment—that such decisions are best left to the discretion of the medical doctors involved, who in hospitals throughout the country are daily faced with difficult judgments. I am not sure that high-profile political debate would assist them to make those difficult judgments.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the passing of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, Her Majesty's Government promised the House a regular debate on London issues. The Leader of the House will have heard the excellent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on congestion charges. Surely the House should be consulted on the merits of that iniquitous scheme, which will weigh particularly heavily on Londoners at a time when their public transport has been steadily run down? Will the Leader of the House now assure us that we will get that early debate, preferably before Easter?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that it is a good use of the House's time to debate matters over which the Government have no legal powers. Our main angle on congestion charges is whether the revenue from them is used to improve public transport; that is the locus of Government. We do not have a locus to prevent the use of the powers that the House has given the Mayor of London. However, I am sensitive to the need for a debate on London, and I said in the last business statement that I shall keep under review the opportunity for a debate on London issues.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I raise a matter of interest to my north-east constituents in Hartlepool? We had been led to expect that the White Paper on devolution to the English regions would appear in the new year, then March and then by Easter. However, according to a report in today's Financial Times, it has been postponed by the Government until a future date. Can my right hon. Friend say whether or not that is the case and, if it is, offer an explanation? Will he give an undertaking to the House that that will not mean that the Government's legislative timetable, whatever it is, will not slip?
Mr. Cook: Of course, no date was ever given for publication of the White Paper on the regions, so it is difficult to understand the allegation in the press that there has been a delay in a publication date that was never set. The bottom line is that all in the Cabinet want to introduce a White Paper on the regions. As my right hon. Friend, who follows these matters closely, will know, there are difficult issues to be resolved; they are being actively worked upon in repeated meetings. As soon as we can produce a White Paper, we shall do so.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I feel sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating dangerously. I was grateful a few weeks ago for his assurances that Ministers would come to the Dispatch Box to keep us informed of developments. Does he think it appropriate, when the
852
Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition politicians there are clearly being intimidated ahead of the presidential election, to have a statement next week?
Mr. Cook: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the gravity of the situation in Zimbabwe. As he seeks a Government statement, I can say that we fully deplore the way in which the Leader of the Opposition there has been treated: on all the alleged evidence produced so far there is obviously no motivation other than a political one for the charges that have been brought against him.
I will indeed keep under review when it may be appropriate for a Minister to make a statement at the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the elections, a week on Sunday, will take place very shortly; the House will obviously want to consider what happens after those elections. Whether it would be helpful in the context of those elections to have debates which would be relayed within Zimbabwe is another matter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There were excellent exchanges today during Treasury questions on international debt relief and educational developments in the third world. Has my right hon. Friend noticed early-day motion 885 on tackling global poverty?
[That this House notes that international currency transactions total more than $1 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to the real economy of tangible trade goods and services; believes that such enormous speculative flows have contributed to serious economic damage to countries and regions such as Mexico (1994), Southeast Asia (1997), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999) and Argentina (2001); further believes that a small levy on such currency speculation, the Tobin tax, named after the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, potentially in excess of $50 billion each year, for projects targeted towards ending global poverty, is pleased that this initiative now enjoys the backing of a number of governments and parliaments across the world, including France, whose parliament recently passed a law authorising its implementation; is heartened by the words of the Chancellor that innovative ways need to be urgently found, including currency taxes, to finance development; wishes the Chancellor a successful mission to the UN 'Financing for development' conference in Monterrey, Mexico; urges him to take steps towards the introduction of a internationally co-ordinated currency transactions tax, with the proceeds ring-fenced for international substantial development objectives; and further urges the Chancellor to ensure that these proceeds do not replace either existing international aid disbursements or agreed commitments to increase international aid.]
The first six signatories to the motion are from different political parties in the House and are concerned about introducing an international tax on international currency transactions and ring-fencing the money for third world development. Can we have a debate on that, which perhaps could be tied in with Monterrey and discussions on financing development, whether before or after the conference?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, and welcome his reference to the useful

853
exchanges during Treasury Question Time. The United Kingdom has been very much in the forefront of international debate on this issue and, in fairness, the last Conservative Chancellor was active on the matter too.
The Monterrey conference provides a useful opportunity to refocus international energy and interest on providing finance for development, which has not been sufficiently prominent in international affairs. I can assure my hon. Friend that my colleagues attending the conference will do all they can to make sure that a successful outcome is secured. That may not involve a Tobin tax, which has its own serious technical problems, but must involve equivalent ways of helping the third world.
Lembit Öpik: As one of those involved in the Middle Way Group option which seeks to offer an alternative to the rather entrenched positions of the pro and anti-hunting with dogs lobbies, and given that polls indicate that the public are moving away from criminalisation of hunting with dogs towards regulation, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the Commons and Lords disagreeing with regard to the options in the Bill, he would consider setting up some sort of three-way dialogue so that, with some generous listening and mutual respect, we might be able to find a workable and fair solution that is accepted by a majority of the British people?
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman will be talking to himself, then.
Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) says, and I gather that some of my hon. Friends did, too. I have just announced that there will be a vote in both Houses in some two weeks, and we need to wait and see the outcome of those votes before we consider the next step. The Government go to bed every night in the hope that they may wake up and discover that both Houses have voted for the same thing.
John Cryer: On the subject of hunting, I welcome the debate but this will be the fourth debate and free vote on the subject of hunting with hounds. We have had crushing majorities on all three previous occasions. Is it not about time that a Bill was introduced? Contrary, to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) just said, if the Bill is passed in this place and goes up the Corridor to the other place and the Lords decide to sabotage it, the Parliament Act would automatically be invoked—we would not need any commission—and the legislation would be passed. Then we could get on with abolishing the House of Lords.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure to what extent my hon. Friend's final remark will provide an incentive to their lordships in the other place to be co-operative. I recognise the logic of his argument in terms of the application of the Parliament Act, but that would depend on all sides being satisfied with the precise terms of the Bill in the last Parliament. Some people, not necessarily those who are in any way friendly to hunting, have suggested ways in which that Bill could be improved. That, of course, cannot be done within the terms of the Parliament Act.
Mr. William Cash: The Leader of the House will know that the European Scrutiny Committee has been
854
conducting an inquiry into democracy and accountability in the national Parliaments. In the context of the constitutional convention that is taking place in Brussels today and in future months, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure, so far as he is able to do so, that the Minister for Europe comes before the House regularly so that proper questions can be put to him and we, and representatives of all parties in all parts of the House, can be properly informed about what is going on there? There is a strong feeling in the House that the disproportionate direction in which the convention is going could severely limit future democracy in this country.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone else in the House that the convention meets for the first time today, so it may be a little premature to say what direction it is travelling in. He will have noted the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary setting out a perspective quite distinct from that of some of the other countries that will be participating in the convention. I am not sure that all the rest of the House would share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for regular statements on progress in the convention, but it is a matter of legitimate interest, which I am sure will be aired. I look forward to the report from the European Scrutiny Committee on how we could improve our procedures in this House.
Roger Casale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment and inauguration of the convention on the future of Europe which, by bringing together national Parliaments with the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, will provide a unique opportunity to involve civil society and the people of Europe in a discussion and debate about the future limits and future direction of Europe? Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that we should give central importance to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, both in assisting our representatives on the convention to report back to the House, and in monitoring the progress of the convention, and secondly, that in parallel with the report of the Modernisation Committee on the work of Select Committees, this is a good opportunity to review and upgrade the work of the House in scrutinising European legislation? Perhaps we could consider some small experiments such as appointment by the European Scrutiny Committee of a rapporteur on the convention, or larger ideas such as the establishment of a Grand Committee on European affairs. Thirdly, does he accept that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Twice is enough.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes some very interesting proposals, and I would be very happy to discuss with him privately whatever else he was about to propose. On the question of appointing a rapporteur, the Modernisation Committee suggested in our report on Select Committees that they could make more use of rapporteurs. Of course, it is open to the European Scrutiny Committee to consider that possibility. I am pleased that the House is well represented on the convention and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on her election by the convention to its collective presidency. She will be able to play a major role in shaping its direction and procedures.

855
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) touched on the key issue: the convention should be not merely a body of politicians talking to each other, but a forum that can liberate and allow civil society and the public of Europe to take part in the debate about their future. Ultimately, we have to find a solution that is acceptable to the public and supported by them.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the accuracy of communications? Has he had a chance to consider early-day motion 904?
[That this House notes the report in the Evening Standard of 26th February that the Shooting Stars Children's Hospice has not yet been built; and consequently calls upon the Liberal Democrat honourable Member for Richmond Park to justify her press release stating that 'It was an honour to meet the brave children at the hospice. The work the doctors and nurses do at the Shooting Stars Children's Hospice is second to none'.]
The motion refers to comments by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about visiting the Shooting Stars children's hospice, but unfortunately, as it says, the hospice has not yet been built.
There are other occasions in respect of which the Leader of the House could consider the need for a debate about communications. I notice that the 22 February edition of Liberal Democrat News announces that there is to be a by-election in Matlock on Hurst farm. A number is given for contacting helpers, and the announcement states:
"Party defending seat: Liberal Democrat. Cause: Resignation."
As of yesterday morning, there had been no such resignation. Could we have a debate on the accuracy of the information that is being circulated?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman memorably raised a matter concerning communication by a Department last time, so I am immensely relieved that he is being non-partisan. He has not yet attacked the Conservative party about communication, but no doubt he will have many opportunities to do so in future. I am pleased to say that I have no ministerial responsibility for these matters, but the House will have heard his remarks.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend may have seen a recent BBC poll on the national health service, which showed that the No. 1 popular priority was free, long-term care for the elderly. Subsequently, he may also have seen a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research saying that such care should be a priority for the Government and was popular with the electorate. He will have noticed early-day motion 351, on the Right to Care campaign.
[That this House welcomes the launch of the Right to Care Campaign; believes that the formation of a campaign grouping involving 20 major campaign groups, charities and trade unions is testament to the depth of feeling surrounding the issue of long-term care felt by the members of these organisations and by many members of the public; is concerned that distinguishing between personal and nursing care is impractical and will prove unworkable; further believes that these differences in policy between regions of the UK are creating major disparities in the type and levels of care available to elderly and disabled people; and urges the Government
856
to fully fund personal and nursing care that is free at the point of use for all who need long-term care, wherever they live throughout the UK]
The motion has the signatures of 122 hon. Members, the majority of whom come from the Labour Benches, and calls for free long-term care for the elderly. Will my right hon. Friend make time for another debate on this subject in the very near future?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profoundly important issue that will one day affect all of us in this Chamber. It is also a matter of real and legitimate public debate. I have noted the reports to which he referred and will bear in mind this topic among the many others for which there are bids for discussion in the House. I remind him and the House that the Government have acted by providing for the first time that all nursing care in private residential homes will be provided for free. We have honoured that commitment and it is making a genuine difference.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will agree that the forthcoming debate on the armed forces and terrorism will be an opportunity to acknowledge the professionalism, ability and skill that the armed forces have shown in the fight against terrorism. Will it not also be an opportunity to commit ourselves to providing the armed forces with the resources that they need to fulfil their task? It is especially important that, as some personnel have been wounded and injured or have become sick as a result of their service, we continue to look after them afterwards. I remember from my parish days in Belfast that the prisoners whom we cared for were often far better looked after than the soldiers whom we sent to protect the citizens.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and many others will wish to use the debate to record the House's deep debt of gratitude to those who serve us in the armed forces and our appreciation of their professionalism and dedication. They are repeatedly demonstrated to be among the finest anywhere on the globe, and we can take pride in them.
The Ministry of Defence goes well out of its way to try to provide help for those who have been injured in the line of duty and to protect and help bereaved families, as it did—exceptionally so—in the case of the bombardier who was killed in Sierra Leone. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about specific cases, I shall be happy to transmit them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am sure that the Leader of the House will be delighted to hear that I wish to help the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to do his job properly by calling for a debate on transport as soon as possible. During that debate, we could consider the success story of Chiltern Railways, which has just been awarded a new 20-year franchise; the progress of crossrail; the difficulties of Central Railway; and the appalling mess of the London underground, which is severely affecting my constituents. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain to us why his mind was not on his job the other day when he appeared not to know that the Metropolitan line, which runs into

857
my constituency, is the worst line on the London underground. He could also give us the guarantees that we seek—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not like the hon. Lady to anticipate her speech in such a debate.
Mr. Cook: It always worries me when Opposition Members say that they are going to be helpful. However, I agree with the hon. Lady about the success of the Chiltern line. I noticed that it has been decided that it will now be a classless line with one single class. That flatly contradicts the prediction of a previous Conservative Minister of Transport, who said that privatisation would bring in several classes, including a cheap and cheerful class for typists. I am sure we are all glad that they were wrong about privatisation in that respect, as in so many others.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I thank the Leader of the House for the charming and gracious way in which he corrected the record from two weeks ago. However, in line with "Erskine May", is it good enough to have to wait two weeks for the correction? It became clear at 4 o'clock on the afternoon on which he made his statement that he had been misled and had therefore inadvertently misled the House. I raised that on the Floor of the House before 6 o'clock that evening and again last Monday. Does two weeks meet the requirement of correcting as soon as possible inadvertent misleadings of the House?
I invite the Leader of the House to correct the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill has 68 amendments tabled for Monday, all of which are in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming that there will be Government amendments. I understand that they may be substantial amendments arising directly from our debates in Committee. The fact that we did not debate 32 clauses and seven schedules, yet finished with time to spare, must be taken up by the Modernisation Committee. We must be able to do our job as legislators properly.
Mr. Cook: On the time taken before correcting the record, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that from 7 o'clock that day until Monday the House did not sit. This is the first business statement since then, and I have corrected the record at the appropriate time to the appropriate audience.
As regards the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, I am sorry if I was wrong about the composition of the 68 amendments to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred. I understand that technical Government amendments will be moved to fulfil the commitments that we made in Committee.
I am not entirely convinced that the hon. Gentleman's revelation that all the amendments are in his name makes a compelling case for another day's debate. However, we
858
shall reflect on that in the light of what happens during the debate. If we take a businesslike and professional approach, I am sure that we can do it in the one day.
Mr. David Heath: I wish the Leader of the House a happy birthday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Can he find time in the near future for the Secretary of State for Defence to explain to the House, through a debate or a statement, exactly what is intended for the Fleet Air Arm and the Sea Harrier force? I understand that a press conference will be held at the Ministry of Defence this afternoon. There has been further speculation in the press this morning, which has been enormously unsettling for the people I represent at the royal naval air station at Yeovilton—the pilots and their families in particular. It would appear that significant changes are being made to the Ministry of Defence's assessment of the economic case for moving the Sea Harriers away from Yeovilton, without any explanation. As the Member representing that constituency, I have not been given the normal courtesy that I receive from the Ministry of an explanation of what is intended. Will the Leader of the House make it plain to the Secretary of State for Defence that it would be extremely helpful to the members of the Royal Navy who serve this country well if they were given a clear understanding of what is intended?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Brevity would also be helpful.
Mr. Cook: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, it is my experience that the Ministry of Defence is one of the most punctilious Departments in making statements to the House. Its Ministers have probably made more statements than those of any other Department during the course of this Session. In the spirit of the good wishes that the hon. Gentleman has offered to me, however, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and suggest that he contacts the hon. Gentleman to clarify the situation.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can we have an early statement on the disposal of school playing fields? As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, his Government were elected five years ago on a pledge to stop the sale of school playing fields, yet we now know that, in spite of the comment by the Prime Minister as long ago as 1999 about the disgraceful waste of sporting talent due to the loss of school playing fields, the Government have done nothing about this. I also know, from a written answer that I received this week, that of 100 applications received since the Government supposedly tightened the rules only two have been rejected. The Government clearly have no intention of keeping their promise on this matter. The National Playing Fields Association has said that the Government have not kept their word. Can we have a statement on this, so that Ministers can explain why they have not kept their word?
Mr. Cook: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government acted quickly after 1997 to change the regulations and guidelines under which they would grant licences. Indeed, the number of applications for transfer

859
has declined, because local authorities—very reasonably, having seen what the Government said they would and would not agree to—do not submit applications when they know that they will get a negative response. That is why we should not read significance into the fact that the applications that are submitted are then granted, because that does not take into account the much larger number that are not submitted because they know they will be refused.
Hugh Robertson: This week has seen the publication of the latest edition of Members' voting records, which many of our constituents use as a measure of the diligence of Members of Parliament. The Leader of the House has also announced another free vote—one of a number that we are expecting in the next few months. Will he give some thought to making available a desk in one of the voting Lobbies, so that Members who wish to do so can formally register an abstention which will then go on the record?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure whether, given three options to vote on Monday 18 March, anyone would really need to abstain on all three options. I personally deprecate the use of the voting record as conclusive evidence of the activity or contribution of a Member.
Mr. Forth: Why?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman asks why. I think that I had the third-lowest voting record during the last Parliament, for the very good reason that I spent so much time going around the world. Hon. Members are entitled to have their contribution judged in the round, rather than having it reduced to one simple statistic.

Points of Order
1.53 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order that may possibly even be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say during a reply that, following the indicative vote and the process of consultation by the Minister of State, the Government would introduce a Bill before Easter. I am sure that that is exactly what I heard, whether or not it is subsequently corrected in Hansard. I have also just seen a reply from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which says that after the process I have just described, the Government will make a statement on the way forward. The question is whether there will be a Bill or a statement. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to clear this matter up before we get into further confusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Perhaps I can give the Leader of the House the opportunity to respond to that, although I think that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) might possibly have misheard him.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I would not wish there to be any doubt about what I said to the House. I have in front of me the words that I used in my opening statement:
"Following those votes my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs intends to bring forward, before the Easter recess, our proposals to resolve the issue."
I believe that that is what I repeated subsequently in my answers, but if there is any conflict, I am happy to confirm that that is certainly the position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The record will show what was said.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to column 563 of the Official Report of Tuesday 26 February, and to the personal statement of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is entitled "Resignation of Martin Sixsmith"? You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Sixsmith went on television that night to say that he had not resigned, and that negotiations were in train for him to secure his acquiescence to his proposed dismissal, perhaps involving a large sum of taxpayers' money.
Hansard is always regarded as an accurate record, and historians and serious students of politics look to it for a precise and accurate record of what occurred. In this case, it should have said "the so-called resignation" or "the alleged resignation", or even "the desired dismissal", but at that stage—and, I believe, even now—Mr. Sixsmith had not resigned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which the Chair can adjudicate, other than to observe that Hansard was no doubt recording the manner in which the point was announced, and it can do only that. If the hon. Gentleman has a substantive point, he knows that there are other ways in which to pursue it.
Roger Casale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand why you were not able

861
to allow me to pursue a line of questioning about the future of Europe convention through business questions, but will you accept that if the House is to make its full contribution to that important convention we need more procedures than are currently available?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but he must not try to pursue his uncompleted supplementary question through a point of order to the Chair. I am sure that he will have opportunities to pursue that important matter.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    COMPANIES ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to prevent the sale by auditors of other services to audit clients: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 104].

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
1.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Welsh day debate first took place in 1944, when Aneurin Bevan, then the Member of Parliament for Ebbw Vale, and other famous Welsh politicians spoke. It is an important feature of the parliamentary calendar that every year we have this unique opportunity for Members of this Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies, and those who do not but have an interest in Welsh matters, to debate, deliberate and discuss any matters that affect the Welsh people.
Since last year, several events have occurred, the most recently significant of which was the arrival in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). We welcome him and, if he catches your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be able to listen to his maiden speech. He replaces Sir Raymond Powell, and those of us who were friends of Sir Raymond for many years will recall that this was a special day for him. He would be responsible for gathering the daffodils for the debate, and ensuring that every Member who wished to do so would have one to wear.
Sir Raymond's contribution to the House of Commons was, however, much greater than that. When I entered the House in 1987, I had to share accommodation with seven other Members of Parliament. New Members entering the House today do not have to do that. The fact that there is accommodation befitting a modern Parliament is largely due to Sir Ray Powell. He was a great servant to his constituency. Especially significant was the help he gave shopworkers, as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
We miss Sir Ray Powell today, but, as I have said, we welcome my hon. Friend in his place. He won a significant victory in the recent by-election. Although we may consult opinion polls from day to day and from week to week, the only polls that truly matter are the real polls, and the result achieved by my hon. Friend was significant in many ways—perhaps above all because, as a person from the south Wales valleys, he will be able to represent a very diverse constituency.
Since our previous debate on Welsh affairs, there has been another election: the general election. I am tempted, and will succumb to the temptation, to refer to what was said in March last year by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whose daffodil looks splendid today. He said:
"Labour will not be given another chance at the general election."—[Official Report, 5 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 53.]
His crystal ball must have misted over. He made some other predictions, which I will list in the order in which he uttered them. He said that there would be Conservative victories in Monmouth, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Vale of Clwyd, Conwy, Cardiff, North, Vale of Glamorgan, Clwyd, West, Cardiff, Central, Brecon and Radnorshire, and Montgomeryshire.
At that point, however, a glimmer must have shone through from the spirit world. The hon. Gentleman correctly predicted that Plaid Cymru would lose Ynys Môn, which it did—but not, as the hon. Gentleman

863
forecast, to the Conservatives. He also predicted that he would become Secretary of State for Wales. I am delighted that I am here and he is over there.
I hope that we shall hear a further round of predictions from the hon. Gentleman today. If we do, I shall head straight for the bookmakers with my copy of Mystic Nigel's Tips for the Top. I shall resist the temptation to use the Welsh block, big though it is. I will put some of my own money on anything and everything not endorsed by the hon. Gentleman.
We fought the general election robustly. We fought it on the basis of our economic record, our plan to reduce unemployment and poverty, and the need to invest in and reform our great public services. The Conservatives also fought the election in Wales, of course, although no Conservative MP was returned there. They tried to do what I suspect the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will try to do later today: they tried to wipe from the public memory the record of 18 years that were so shameful and damaging for the people of Wales. The Conservatives ran down our public services, introduced botched privatisations—the classic example being the railway privatisation—and managed a boom-and-bust economy.
At the eve-of-poll rally for my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was the main speaker—and a great speech he made, too. It was a classic defence of everything that the Labour Government had done. In that speech, he said, "You can't have socialism if you're skint." He is right. To do what we want to do—in Wales, through the National Assembly—to improve services for those whom we represent, we must first have a strong economy.
All that is done in Wales to ensure the provision of public services is done against the backcloth of a strong economy, the fourth strongest on the planet. If inflation and mortgage rates were not the lowest for decades, and if unemployment—especially among young people—were not at its lowest for years in every Welsh constituency, the Assembly could not do what it must do to provide those services for our people.
We ended the Conservative practice of using mass unemployment as a means of controlling inflation. We have used money that was squandered on paying dole money to those who wanted work, to help eliminate poverty. That has been the key to the first few years of a Labour Government. It has meant that devolution can work in the provision of services.
Our strong economy has also meant that 90,000 people in Wales benefit from the minimum wage. Thousands of young people who were unemployed now have jobs. Welsh pensioners are better off than they have ever been. By April, the poorest pensioner households will be more than £1,000 a year better off in real terms than they were in 1997; the average pensioner household will be £840 a year better off than it was in that year, as a result of tax and benefit changes; and an extra £6 billion a year will be spent on pensioners, £2.5 billion on the poorest third. Far less than that would have been delivered by the link with earnings.
Working families tax credit and other tax breaks have helped thousands of Welsh people. Child poverty in Wales has been reduced. The personal tax and benefit changes introduced in the last Parliament mean that 1.2 million fewer children are in poverty in the United Kingdom than would otherwise have been the case. As
864
a result of personal tax and benefit reforms since 1997, households with children are on average £1,000 a year better off. The number of children living in workless households fell by 300,000 during the last Parliament. Is it any wonder that, at last year's general election, the people decided once more to put their trust in Labour to run our country?
Moreover, we invested in our public services. We have heard a lot about public services of late. We have heard that some are not working well, and that this is happening while that is not happening. The first thing we had to do, in fact, was to ensure that money went into those public services. Any expert examining the comprehensive spending review presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last spending round will know that billions of pounds were given to Wales in addition to what it would normally have been given, for health and education in particular but for other services too.
Furthermore, for the first time, Wales has had an objective 1 programme that is, properly, additional to the block grant. Nearly half a billion pounds extra went into the coffers of the Assembly. In all the time that the structural fund has existed, that has never happened before. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister said that they would not let Wales down, and they did not.
Investment, however, is not enough; there must be reform as well. Sometimes that takes time. Sometimes teachers, nurses, doctors and others must be trained, and that will not happen overnight. Sometimes, naturally, people become impatient. But the reform is happening, and Labour Members remain fully committed to a health service free at the point of use and funded through general taxation.
By far the fairest way to fund health services is though the tax system. As long as the Labour Government remain in office, the tax system will be the essential means of funding our health service. Obviously, it is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make his decisions about what level of tax is required to pay for essential investment in public services, but we remain firm on that basic principle.
No doubt we shall hear later how the Opposition propose to fund any changes in the NHS, and how that will fit in with what they have said in past months about levels of expenditure. However, we know that it would not be possible for the Opposition to fund the health service—or the Welsh block that in turn funds the health service—if they did not commit themselves to proper expenditure. Therefore, we shall listen with great interest to what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley proposes to do with regard to funding our public services.
However, the Opposition should be reminded of what happened when a previous Conservative Government introduced a new tax and abandoned progressive taxation. That Government in the end had to abandon the community charge—or poll tax—because it was so unpopular. The importance of what the Opposition propose is so great that I am sure that all hon. Members will be waiting with bated breath to hear what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has to say.
In the end, the reform of public services in Wales is a matter for our colleagues in the National Assembly. The Government provide the resources, but the Assembly

865
decides how those resources are spent. There has been some debate about the use of private money in funding our services. The Government and my colleagues in Cardiff have always said that any private money used in funding public services would be additional to public funding.
That is a matter not of ideology, but of common sense. In some constituencies—and the hon. Members representing those areas are in the Chamber today—certain items of public expenditure have been bolstered by the use of additional private money. Projects that have benefited in that way include schools, hospitals, council offices and waste management schemes, and they have been set up in local authority areas controlled by parties other than the Labour party. Examples include a school in Maesteg, a secondary school and a road in Caerphilly, a secondary school in Ceredigion, schools in Conwy, council offices in Denbighshire, hospitals in Monmouthshire, roads and schools in Newport, primary and nursery schools and local authority offices in Pembrokeshire, community activity in Rhondda Cynon Taff, and integrated waste management schemes in Wrexham.
I am not saying that the use of private funds is to be the main, core means of funding our public services, but there must be innovation in how we deal with reforming and investing in those services, which are vital to every part of Wales. Sometimes, an artificial distinction is made between rural Wales and urban and industrial Wales. Yet the matters to which I have already referred—the benefits to pensioners, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the changes in taxation—are as significant and important to people living in rural mid-Wales as they are to people in my south Wales valley constituency, or to people in the city of Cardiff.
The police, health, education and transport services are as important in rural Wales as they are elsewhere. Last year, we held our debate just as the scale of the foot and mouth outbreak was becoming clear. For many in the Welsh countryside, the past year has been appalling. If the foot and mouth outbreak taught us one central lesson, it was that tourism and other elements of the rural economy are as important as farming when it comes to providing jobs and prosperity to rural Wales.
The decisions that we took to protect farming were supported by hon. Members of all parties and had widespread effects that went well beyond farming. Although it must be our hope that we will not see another foot and mouth outbreak in our lifetimes, we must recognise that no one can offer any such guarantees. That is why it is so important to learn lessons very quickly, and to be as diligent as we have been over past months. That diligence extends to the issue of food imports, which was raised only yesterday.
It is important to put on record what the Government, and especially the National Assembly, have done over the past year to help rural areas. The Government have set up the rural taskforce, granted deferment of tax, value added tax and national insurance, and offered business advice through Business Connect. We have allowed businesses suffering from cash flow problems to apply for loans worth up to £250,000 from the small firms loan guarantee scheme, and we have encouraged banks, building societies and insurance companies to offer sympathetic treatment.
866
We have also made available nearly £160 million of agrimonetary compensation. In addition, the £65 million in Cardiff's rural recovery plan includes help for marketing, tourism, environmental projects, and so on.
I suppose that it will be quite a long time before the full effects of foot and mouth on our rural economies are properly known. Only one Welsh constituency has no farms, so I am sure that all hon. Members with constituencies in Wales are conscious of what has occurred in the past year.
Mr. Roger Williams: All the areas affected by foot and mouth value the rural recovery plan, but is not the Secretary of State disturbed to hear that tourist businesses outside the areas covered by objective 1 and 2 funds find that state aid laws prevent them from obtaining substantial funding from the Wales tourist board? For instance, a person in my constituency has a project to build a leisure centre costing £750,000, but the grant aid available to him is limited to less than £50,000.
Mr. Murphy: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that foot and mouth disease has caused serious difficulties in his area. He and I attended a service in Brecon cathedral some months ago, which was attended by representatives from all the different walks of life in his constituency. I shall certainly make sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said is put to the Ministers for Rural Affairs and for Finance, Local Government and Housing in Cardiff. However, I know that the Welsh Assembly has given substantial help to tourism, and only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced another package to ensure that tourism comes into Wales, both from within the UK and from overseas.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State rightly highlights the need for vigilance, especially with regard to contaminated meat imports that could bring foot and mouth back to Wales. However, Customs and Excise and the other agencies trying to patrol the ports report severe manpower shortages. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what measures he is taking to correct that shortfall of officers?
Mr. Murphy: It is not for me to take those measures, but I shall certainly make clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to colleagues in other Departments how important it is to liaise with Customs and Excise, local authorities and other agencies—and with the Assembly, too, where that is relevant—to ensure that there is a programme to deal with imports of illegal food. Much greater vigilance is necessary at airports and ports, as is a good public information programme. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government are aware of the points that he has made.
The difficulties of the past year have not been confined to rural areas, but have been experienced too in some of our urban areas. Not long ago, the Welsh Grand Committee met in Cwmbran to debate the future of manufacturing industry in Wales.
Of course, we have had the difficult news about Corus and there have been other examples of industries moving to eastern Europe and elsewhere, but the issue is whether those industries are being replaced in Wales.

867
Many of us can remember, because we are that old, a time when our valleys were dominated by coal and steel. I remember, 30 years ago, when those industries were declining, how they had to be replaced, sometimes by heavy engineering and other forms of manufacturing. In my constituency, 12,000 jobs that had replaced the jobs in coal were lost in 20 years, but those in turn are now being replaced by jobs in information technology, computerisation and so on. That, added to the measures that the Government have introduced for the benefit of the people of Wales in their hugely successful new deal programme, means that there is not a single constituency in Wales that cannot point to an improvement in its unemployment figures.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Of course we agree that, as heavy industries decline, they must be replaced by more modern ones, but surely it only accelerates the process of the decline of heavy industries such as steel in south Wales when the Government give encouragement and active assistance to someone like Mr. Mittal to help competitors in places such as Romania.
Mr. MurphyWe will have the opportunity to debate these matters in greater detail next week. I look forward to that debate, in which I will take part. I will comment briefly on the hon. Gentleman's points—he knows Wales reasonably well—but I want first to finish the point that I was making.
The way in which our industries change and we skill up our people to work in the new industries is the key to their future. Why did we get objective 1? The whole purpose is to bring the Welsh economy up to the standards of those of other countries in Europe, so that we can follow the lead of the Irish economy and become, in a matter of 10 or 20 years, one of the most successful regional economies in Europe.
We have example after example of new industries, factories and plants being established in constituencies throughout Wales—Ford in Bridgend and BAE in Broughton are just two examples.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) knows that I had to spend a great deal of time speaking to the chief executive and chairman and other people at Corus to try to find out what it would take for them to retain those 3,000 jobs in Wales, and 6,000 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Time after time, I asked Brian Moffat and the others whether the Government could do anything to change their minds about their intentions for the steel industry. The answer was no. I rather suspect that they had made their minds up at the time of the merger.
On every single day of those negotiations, I was in contact with the steel unions. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation will certainly agree with what I am saying. Time and time again, we said that we would like to offer various measures of assistance, but Corus was not willing to change its strategy, so we had to ensure that, when those decisions had been taken—they affected my constituents far more than the hon. Gentleman's: at least 1,000 of mine lost jobs at Llanwern and Ebbw Vale—something was done to replace the lost jobs.
The Government and the Assembly put together tens and tens of millions of pounds to regenerate our local economies. For example, there is the railway from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff, which has long been needed. I worked in Ebbw Vale for 17 years, so I know a little bit about the situation in Blaenau Gwent.
868
On the point about Mittal, it is wrong to say that Corus would have changed its mind or done anything different because of the Prime Minister's letter to the Romanian Prime Minister. It would not have made a ha'porth of difference. Why is it always said, whenever the Government, or any other European Government, help an economy that needs help, be it in Asia, Africa or eastern Europe, that we are harming our own economy?
Some of my colleagues have sent trade delegations to Romania that have included Welsh companies. When we help to bring up to modern economic standards countries such as those that want to join the European Union, which is what we do as a developed country, of course we run the risk of creating a competitor, but we also ensure that trade with that country improves, allowing Wales to export to an economy that is much sounder than it was. That is the reason behind the Prime Minister's letter and that is why we wanted to ensure that the industry and economy in Romania were up to scratch.
Adam Price: The Secretary of State will have seen the letter from Graham McKenzie of Allied Steel and Wire to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with Mr. McKenzie's assessment that Mr. Mittal's acquisition of the Sidex plant in Romania was detrimental to the interests of the Welsh steel industry, because it will result in direct competition and endanger jobs in Wales?
Mr. Murphy: There are very strict regulations in Europe on dumping, and the Government have strict policies on protectionism, including for the United States. We will debate these matters in greater detail next week, but the hon. Gentleman and his party very much agreed with objective 1 funding, the whole idea of which is that the wealthier countries in Europe, including Germany, should provide funding to improve the Welsh economy, among others.
I cannot understand how a party that has said that is fundamentally for Wales and Europe—it did not say much about Britain until this latest episode—can object to assistance to Romania, which although not part of the European Union, is a struggling country trying to become part of it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that every time we help such a country it is to the detriment of Welsh industry.
Alan Howarth: My constituents, including those at Llanwern, are deeply appreciative of the energetic efforts that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor made to try to find ways of helping Corus when it was contemplating the discontinuation of steel making at Llanwern. They did everything that they could to ensure that that disaster did not take place, but Corus proved hard to help, as my right hon. Friend said. I thank him also for his unwavering commitment to ensuring that Newport, which is not an objective 1 area, got effective assistance, including, for example, through the urban regeneration company which the First Minister has promised us. It would be enormously helpful if we could have the Minister's continuing support to ensure early clarification

869
of the urban regeneration company's scope and terms of reference, and so that we can get it up and running. At present, a mass of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That has gone way outside the confines of an intervention.
Mr. Murphy: It was a nice intervention, if too long, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments, and I obviously agree that it is very important to regenerate our communities following the loss of jobs in the steel industry. That is why next week, we and the Welsh national party should debate how to regenerate the Welsh economy. That is much more important than the old rubbish about which we have been hearing.
Denzil Davies: I do not want to prolong the debate on the Mittal affair, which I presume will continue next week, but regardless of misgivings that might exist, does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument that we have just heard—that because Mr. Mittal purchased a Romanian steelworks, it is in direct competition with Corus—is one of the weakest? If Usinor, the French company, had purchased that steelworks, it would still be in direct competition with Corus. Similarly, a steelworks in Slovakia that a major American company bought is now in direct competition with Corus.
Mr. Murphy: I agree. Of course, those who work in the steel industry in south Wales could argue that the greatest threat to it was the original merger with a Dutch company.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
Mr. Murphy: Given that we shall discuss the matter next week, and given that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak to the debate, it is wise to move on.
Mr. Llwyd rose—
Mr. Murphy: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hear what he says and I am sure that his comments about the packages that were put forward are accurate. However, the truth is that it was common knowledge for some 18 months to two years beforehand that Corus was losing billions of pounds. Where were the Government then?
Mr. Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Corus had been telling us repeatedly for many months that the biggest problem it faced was the exchange rate. It subsequently changed its mind somewhat, but that is what it said for months and months. Then it said that the problem was capacity, and then it said that the problem was something else. Who knows what the ultimate problem was? As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have reported the matter to the House before—I attended the relevant meetings and the Government did all that they
870
could to ensure that the industry remained in south Wales. Indeed, the steel unions themselves acknowledged that fact.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Murphy: No, I really must move on. As I told the hon. Gentleman, 1,000 people who work in the steel industry in my constituency have lost their jobs—we will talk about that on Tuesday—and that is probably 1,000 more than have lost jobs in his constituency. Those issues will be discussed in greater detail in the debate that Plaid Cymru has called for next week, and the hon. Gentleman and others can make their points then.
As many Members wish to speak, I shall conclude by discussing the functioning of the House of Commons and the way in which the devolution settlement works with the procedures of the House to ensure that the 40 Members representing Welsh constituencies, along with others who take an interest in Welsh matters, can affect the lives of Welsh women and men.
In the years since the setting up of the National Assembly, we as a Parliament and a Government have worked with it to produce measures of enormous significance to Welsh people. For example, the fact that we have the first children's commissioner in the United Kingdom is a direct result of our working with the Assembly and across parties. The Assembly is using Education and Learning Wales—ELWa—to transform post-16 education and lifelong learning in Wales. That initiative is the result of legislation that this Parliament and this Government passed, in conjunction with the National Assembly.
We gave the Assembly in Wales the functions of the National Care Standards Commission in England; we gave the local government ombudsman the power to investigate alleged misconduct of councillors; we enabled the Assembly to administer the system governing the conduct of councillors—and so on. In this Session, we are dealing with the health service and the education service in Wales through primary legislation, and some of my hon. Friends and other Members have taken part in those debates. The House of Commons is working with the Assembly to change the face of those services.
After Easter, draft health legislation for Wales will hopefully be published and will come before us for consideration. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales twice visited the National Assembly to talk to the relevant health and education committees about dealing with the scrutiny of legislation. When that legislation comes before us, the House of Commons and the National Assembly will have their own ways through which they can scrutinise it for the benefit of Welsh people. To that can be added the good work of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and the many other ways in which Members of Parliament can help to improve the lives of Welsh people through this place.
Let no one therefore say that Welsh Members of Parliament have no role to play in improving the lives of the people whom we represent jointly with members of the Assembly. It is that partnership—team Wales, one might call it—between a Labour Government and a Labour-led Assembly that has alone led to enormous change in the lives of our Welsh people in the past

871
five years. It is because of those policies that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was returned with such a good majority. Devolution itself would not have happened under any party but the Labour party. If it were not for the Labour party, there would be no Assembly and we would not have objective 1.[Interruption.] Now we will hear what the Liberal Democrats intend to do.
Lembit Öpik: I should point out to the Minister, who doubtless made a slip of the tongue, that the Liberals invented the concept of devolution. However, we were delighted that the Labour-led Government felt entitled to adopt that policy, and we will always be happy to lend our good policies to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention—indeed, his inventions, for they are many.
In addition to devolution and objective 1, we are helping old and young people. The Assembly has agreed much the best concessionary fares in the United Kingdom, and museum charges will be abolished so that our young people can visit all the museums in Wales. As a result of a Labour Government, we have the biggest ever police force in Wales, including in the Rhondda.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I agree that one of the most significant changes to tourism in south Wales was free entry to national museums, as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, local authority-run museums such as the Rhondda heritage park are presented with a problem. People have to pay to visit such places while entry to Big Pit is free.
Mr. Murphy: I suppose that I should declare an interest, as Big Pit is in my constituency, but I shall certainly take the matter up with the relevant Minister in Cardiff.
The partnership between a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour-led Assembly in Cardiff has resulted in a quality of life for Welsh women, men and children that is infinitely better than it has been for 100 years. Wales is now a more civilised, compassionate, caring, prosperous and democratic place in which to live and work.
2.39 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is always a joy to take part in the St. David's day debate, and I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about my predictions in the last one. He had no willpower and could not resist rubbing my nose in them. He also told the House that he is ready, wad in pocket, to rush down to the bookies on any prediction that I care to make to bet the other way. I shall make only one prediction today: Wales will beat Italy in the rugby international on Saturday. I can see the headlines now—"Secretary of State for Wales backs Italy in international against Wales". Shocking.
Lembit Öpik: The headline will surely be, "The hon. Member for Ribble Valley destroys Wales's chances of winning".
Mr. Evans: I will allow the hon. Gentleman that intervention, if—I hope—no other in the rest of the debate.
872
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who fought a valiant campaign during a wet three weeks in Ogmore. We all got drenched—some more than others—but I welcome him to the House. We look forward to his maiden speech, if he can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I also endorse the Secretary of State's comments about Sir Ray Powell. We all remember Ray with nostalgia. I was a great supporter of his and I remember the collection of the daffs. He was also the accommodation Whip and if he took a dislike to anyone, it was some time before they moved from a desk in a corridor. Indeed, Ken Livingstone had to wait a long time before he got a room from Ray Powell.
I see that many Labour Members are sporting daffodils. I remember that when I was at Dynevor school with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—several years apart, I hasten to add—some of us would wear leeks on St. David's day, instead of daffodils. I was amused to note, although it is a serious issue, the latest ruling from the European Union on the standardisation of leeks. I was aghast when I read it, because we used to wear leeks of all shapes and sizes. We as consumers were king, and I declare an interest as someone with a retail business in Swansea that sells many a leek.
Leeks will be classified as from tomorrow, which is the final insult. If it had happened on 1 April, I could have understood it better. They will be classified into two classes. The regulations state that leeks in class I must be
"of good quality…The white to greenish white part of the leeks must represent at least one-third of the total length or half of the sheathed part. However, in early leeks, the white to greenish white part must represent at least one-quarter of the total length or one-third of the sheathed part…Size is determined by the diameter measured at right angles to the longitudinal axis above the swelling of the neck…The minimum diameter is fixed at 8 mm for early leeks and 10 mm for other leeks. For Class I, the diameter of the largest leek in the same bundle or package must not be more than twice the diameter of the smallest leek."
I always thought that the growing of leeks was God's work but now the EU has come to his aid with some useful advice on the growing and selling of leeks.
Chris Ruane: Is not it a shame that with all the opportunities facing Wales now, such as objective 1 and its bright economic future, the only thing that the hon. Gentleman can rant about today is the sheathing, swelling and length of his leek?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long before I get to the meat. I just thought that I would start with what should be humorous but is all too serious. People will find it strange that, given all the problems that exist, bureaucrats in Europe are setting out rules and regulations that will lead to people going round shops with tape measures, making sure that leeks are the right size. I agree that that is a ridiculous waste of money.
I shall stay on agriculture, because the Secretary of State had much to say about it. The past twelve months have been the direst time that agriculture in Wales and elsewhere has seen. I raised the issue at Welsh questions yesterday and there has just been a scare of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease in north Yorkshire. Thankfully, that has not happened. Wales had 118 cases,

873
with more than 35,000 cattle, 304,000 sheep, 5,900 pigs and 121 goats being slaughtered. The outbreak also had a ripple effect on tourism and allied industries. The cost was enormous. It was estimated at £500 million in Wales alone.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the full implications and ramifications of foot and mouth have yet to become fully known. I therefore find it strange that after an outbreak that devastated and blighted two industries and affected many others, the Government did not agree to a full and independent public inquiry. Much could have been learned. As hon. Members may have gleaned from my earlier remarks, I am not the greatest advocate for everything that the EU does, but I find it amazing that we now have to rely on it to set up an independent inquiry, which will visit Wales. It will gather information from farmers in Wales and elsewhere and make its own recommendations. It is shameful that our own Government could not have done that.
Farmers dearly want the cessation of the importation of substandard meat, but that will take more than putting a few posters up at the ports. The Secretary of State showed some sympathy on the subject yesterday, and I hope that he will have talks with the Minister for Rural Affairs and any other Ministers with influence on the policy, so that we can have strict controls on its importation. If that is how we believe that the last outbreak started, let us take action now to ensure that it never happens again.
The Secretary of State mentioned public services and dwelt at some length on health. While that is a devolved matter, he is right that the money is raised by this Parliament and passed on to the Welsh Assembly. The primary legislative powers also still reside here. However, I am staggered that he made no reference to the appalling state of some aspects of the health service in Wales. I do not implicate those dedicated hard-working nurses and doctors who work in an intolerable atmosphere, but the figures for patients waiting more than 18 months are shocking. In 1997, the number was 1,402, but today it is 4,248. The number waiting more than six months for a first out-patient appointment in Wales was 5,956 in March 1997, but by the end of December 2001, it was 68,000.
I am sure that many hon. Members will have constituents who come to see them or write to them regularly about problems with the national health service. We are burying our heads in the sand if we refuse to wake up to the real problems. A senior surgeon at the Royal Gwent hospital has criticised the increase in waiting times in Wales. He said that they were
"cruel, inhumane and intolerable…the problem is a lack of everything…There are no surgeons, insufficient staff in training, there aren't the facilities for them to work in, there aren't the operating theatres, there aren't beds, there aren't enough anaesthetists…the whole of the Health Service is in such a poor state".
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: Yes. I am sure that the senior surgeon at the Royal Gwent hospital will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's response.
Mr. Bryant: What is the hon. Gentleman's response to the litany that I am sure he is about to give us of what is
874
wrong with the NHS? Does he believe that taxation should go up to pay for the NHS or down? If it should go up, by how much should it do so?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman can give no explanation, but I will answer his response by quoting a headline from the Western Mail: "NHS is wasting millions, says former minister". I am talking about the former Minister—
Mr. Bryant: Should it go up or should it go down?
Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a second, I will quote a former Labour Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who said that about £500 million could have been saved if the Government had followed some of the recommendations that he made when he was Minister.
Part of the problem is that there are differences between hospitals in Wales in the cost of operations. For instance, a Caesarean section would cost £547 at Glan-y-Mor hospital in Swansea but £1,945 at Wrexham Maelor. Hip and femur replacements cost £2,589 in Pembroke, yet at Llandough hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan each operation set its budget back by nearly £8,000. There are enormous differences in the cost of routine operations done in different hospitals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bridgend, who is in his place, will have some contribution to make on the health service. He has said many interesting things in the past, and I am sure that he will say one or two more about that.
Enormous savings can be made by seeking ways to improve best practice. We should listen to practitioners in the health service as well, instead of coming back with some of the spin that we are used to from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and his party.
Mr. Bryant: Answer the question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I give way again to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this issue. He complains about the length of waiting lists to see consultants and surgeons. Is he aware that it takes between 10 and 17 years to train a surgeon or a consultant, and that these people should have been put in place 17 years ago, under the previous Conservative Government?
Mr. Evans: When the Labour party first got elected, we were told that we had 24 hours to save the NHS. We have now been told that it takes 17 years. When the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was Secretary of State for Health, he was told that it would take some time to turn the tanker round. The Government ditched that particular captain well before it was.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. Huw Edwards: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal Gwent hospital and identified some

875
problems in waiting times. They affect my constituents and I am well aware of them. Does he agree that at the Royal Gwent and throughout the national health service, there is also the problem of a lack of consultants who devote their time fully to the NHS? Will he therefore commend the present Government's attempts to negotiate new contracts with consultants to reward them as they deserve to be rewarded for devoting their time full-time to the NHS?
Mr. Evans: What I will not do is commend the Labour Government for cruelly raising expectations in 1997 that everything could be sorted out if only a Labour Government were elected; that clearly has not happened. Devolution was supposed to be the answer to everything. We know from some of the plans that have emerged from the Health Secretary that the reforms will be great news for pen-pushers but certainly not great news for those who work in hospitals. The hon. Member for Monmouth will also remember—I raised the issue the other day at Welsh questions—that he was at the bottom of a very long list to try to get on an NHS waiting list for a dentist in his constituency, because there were no dentists whose list he could get on to immediately. The Government are failing not only him but many of his constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I will give way once more, to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and then I had better move on.
Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He would do well to recognise some of the successes of the health service in Wales. For example, he might go with me to Velindre hospital in my constituency, the cancer hospital for my area, which leads the United Kingdom in trials for cancer care and is an exemplary model of treatment in every way for people suffering from cancer. Perhaps he might help the hard-pressed workers in the health service by recognising their successes in Wales, where they lead the UK.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady must recognise that I started by praising those who are dedicated and committed and work in the national health service. It is they who have to put up with this intolerable Government and the promises that they make. Indeed there are enormous successes in the NHS, whose staff perform miracles daily. My brother had a cancer operation in Singleton hospital in Swansea more than three years ago and the staff performed an absolute miracle on him, so I have great praise for those who work in the NHS. However, I have enormous reservations about some of the problems caused by Government policy.
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No; I want to move on. There are several issues to discuss and many hon. Members want to speak.
I mentioned the National Assembly. We know, with some of the changes that have taken place and with the Mike German affair going from farce to fiasco, that it is a shambles on the inside and a shambles on the outside. When the Secretary of State for Wales says that we need
876
to ensure that money is efficiently spent on the public services, I wonder whether he still believes at this late stage that he could perhaps inform the House of his views on the Assembly building. That is one farce that has certainly carried on—a pantomime that has run way after the Christmas period.
The Secretary of State knows that, when we were discussing devolution, we were told that the whole thing would cost between £12 million and £17 million. When it reached £40 million, the First Secretary decided to put a stop to it. We have ended up with a hole at a cost of £8 million, and the National Assembly is so embarrassed by it that it has now put a fence around that hole in Cardiff at a cost of many thousands of pounds; at one stage I was going to ask the Secretary of State whether he would look into it for me. I am not going to do so, but is he not embarrassed by the enormous waste of money? Would it not have been far better if that money had been spent on the national health service, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North was saying, on some of the excellent services that are available and on improving those services throughout Wales?
I am also concerned about the delay of local elections in Wales until 2004. That means that the people of Wales will now have to wait another 12 months before they can pass judgment on their elected councillors of any persuasion. Surely the Secretary of State has a view about that. We were told that the local elections could not be held on the same day as the elections to the National Assembly in 2003 because it would lead to confusion. But in Scotland the date of the local elections has been altered so that they can be held on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament. Is the Secretary of State really saying that the people of Scotland are more intelligent than the people of Wales? I do not think so, and it is a gross insult that we are being told that because the people of Wales will be confused, the elections have been deferred until 2004.
The last part of my speech deals with the economy in Wales and the meltdown in manufacturing, about which I am extremely concerned. There have already been many job losses in manufacturing. Sony cut 220 jobs in Bridgend. GEAES, an aircraft engine manufacturer, cut 350 jobs on top of the 450 cut last year; the Corning optical factory in Deeside closed, and Dow Corning cut 40 jobs in Barry.
However, the most disturbing name in all this must be Mittal. I know that on Tuesday there is to be a debate on the subject, but I must mention it because manufacturing is so important to Wales. Manufacturing accounts for a disproportionately high percentage of jobs in Wales. Yes, we want the service sector to improve and know that in a number of service jobs, employment has increased. In the Welsh Grand Committee, I mentioned Swansea airport, where an investment has been made. Air Wales now flies from Swansea to Cork and Dublin. That has been an enormous success, and the projection is that about 300,000 jobs—
Kevin Brennan: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind us how many manufacturing jobs in Wales were lost in the first five years of the Conservative Government

877
after 1979? Would he also care to confirm that, as we speak, unemployment in Wales is at its lowest for 25 years?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman reminds us of a time when the Labour party spoke regularly about manufacturing decline. Anyone listening to Labour Members' words during the period 1992 to 1997, when I was first elected, might just have thought that if a Labour Government had been elected in 1997, the rot, as it was called, would stop, and there would be an increase in manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Nick Ainger: The number of jobs in Wales has increased.
Mr. Evans: No. There has not been an increase in manufacturing jobs in Wales but a decline.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Labour Government are in power. We are looking to them to improve the manufacturing sector in Wales, but that simply has not happened.
I am talking about the service sector jobs at Swansea airport, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do his bit to ensure that that airport improves. That would be a great boost to west Wales, and I hope that it would open up parts of that area, which has had some difficult times because the decline in agriculture. Some 1.5 million passengers use Cardiff airport every year, but more could do so if the infrastructure—the roads from the airport to Cardiff—were better, so we also want improvements to take place there. However, manufacturing is the bread and butter of the Welsh economy, so I should like to refer to it.
Mr. Prisk: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although manufacturing in Wales has already been in recession for one year, the Trades Union Congress today intends to publish the fact that it foresees no recovery in manufacturing in the coming year? Indeed, it does not foresee a recovery in manufacturing in Wales until the beginning of next year. So there will be two years of manufacturing recession under Labour.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: That is the TUC's forecast.
Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend suggests, that was said by the TUC—I thought it was a friend of the Labour Government. The fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) exposes some of the deep concerns that, surely, all hon. Members have about what is occurring. Indeed, a total of 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the United Kingdom since 1997.
During the past 12 months, the House has rightly concentrated on the problems with steel and Corus. Hon. Members will remember the questions, debates and statements in the House that related to the job cuts at Corus just over a year ago. The chief executive, Sir Brian Moffat, said that action was needed because of the huge excess in capacity in its strip mills division. It was
878
announced that 6,000 jobs were to go—3,000 of them in Wales. That was a devastating blow to an immensely skilled and productive work force and their families.
The Government said:
"We will do everything that we can to turn the situation around, and I hope that even at this late stage the company will be prepared to sit down and talk with us."
The Liberal Democrat, Richard Livsey, described Sir Brian as a butcher. Barry Jones, when a Member of Parliament, said that
"our communities are now being put at risk by a cynical, brutal, thoughtless, profit-mad company".
He added:
"Our people gave everything to the board and have received nothing back but a kick in the teeth. They believe that they are being sacrificed on the altar that represents profit".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 241-42WH.]
The hon. Member for Monmouth referred to Sir Brian as "the silent assassin". People were being sacrificed, but the silent assassin—if that is what Sir Brian was—was assisted in his work by those in Downing street. The job losses were appalling. Llanwern, Shotton, Ebbw Vale, Bryngwyn all suffered losses in addition to the 3,000 job losses elsewhere.
On 28 March 2001, the Prime Minister said:
"We also stand ready to help in any way that we can with those…people…I hope the company will listen to them; we certainly will."—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 961.]
We now find that he was listening to someone else. Less than two months later, £125,000 was donated by an Indian steel magnate, Mr. Lakshmi Mittal, to the Labour party. His wife had previously supported the Labour party with a more modest £5,000 donation to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), but I am sure that the donation did not go unnoticed at Millbank. The £125,000 donation was received with thanks.
Mr. Mittal is a steel man and has been very successful, from 1976, when ISPAT Indo was established in Indonesia, to the purchases in Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Canada and Germany. In 1995, he moved his headquarters to London, with the expansion into Kazakhstan and Ireland continuing.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, unlike the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales is indeed a pretty straight kind of guy. Does he find it rather strange therefore that the Secretary of State told the House early this afternoon that this was all about helping a poor country such as Romania? If that is the case, why did not the arch spin doctor at No. 10 say so? Why did he instead try to pretend that Mr. Mittal's company was British?
Mr. Evans: No doubt we will hear more about that issue on Tuesday, but the fact is that, as I hope to show, Mr. Mittal's company is anything but British.
Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No. I want to say a little more.
Mr. Mittal was expanding his company throughout the world. He bought the Irish company in 1996, but he closed it five years later, on 15 June 2001, with substantial debts of £40 million. The Irish Government and the

879
European Coal and Steel Community have had to pick up the redundancy costs, but that closure had wider repercussions, as I am sure the Secretary of State for Wales knows. Allied Steel and Wire—which operates in Wales and employs more than 1,300 in the United Kingdom, more than a 1,000 of whom work in Cardiff—has to find another £5 million because the credit that it was accustomed to being given was adversely affected by the fact that that company closed, leaving debts of £40 million.
Graham MacKenzie has written to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, but I want to know what sort of assistance will be given to companies such as his that employ people in this country and pay taxes here. Is it not time that we started to bat for the companies which have been affected? The amazing thing is that the buy-out of that company is similar to the one that took place in County Cork, where a commitment was given that no redundancies would take place for five years. With the closure in Ireland, the redundancies took place after five years and two weeks, and the same commitment has been given.
Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No.
On 23 July 2001, the Prime Minister sent his famous letter backing the deal to the Romanian Premier, Adrian Nastase. It said how the buy-out would help Romania with its accession to the European Union, which, I believe, the Secretary of State for Wales has intimated. Of course, we all know why the Prime Minister signed that letter within weeks of thousands of Welsh, and British, steel jobs being cut. Moreover, other people who now work in the steel industry must be aghast at what is going on.
We are told that the letter was written because Mr. Mittal is a British business man. That was later revised to a business man with British interests. We are told that his headquarters are here, but a leap of imagination is now needed to understand how the Prime Minister possibly thought that he was doing Britain a favour. It then transpired that DFID supported a bid from the company for extra help as well, because it was a British company. [HON. MEMBERS: "DFID?"] Yes, DFID—the Department for International Development. Is that okay?
The company is British, but the fact is that 99.9 per cent. of its work force were overseas. However, it was to receive a £70 million soft loan from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which described the LNM bid as "a very good project". What do hon. Members think those who have lost their jobs in Corus must think now? What do they think anyone who works in the steel industry in Wales thinks now?
Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Evans: We are told that the Prime Minister writes letters all the time for British companies, but what is a British company? I shall refer to a letter that David
880
Davies, the Assembly Member for Monmouth, wrote about a company in Wales. He wrote to the Prime Minister asking for some support on 18 February 2002:
"I am writing on behalf of a family business, Morgans of Usk, which employs 60 people in my constituency, a rural area which has been badly hit by foot and mouth and the closure of the Corus steelworks in nearby Newport.
For ten years this company has been fighting for the release of £35,000 held by the Bank of England. The money was earned through work done on an Iraqi contract by Glantre Engineering prior to the Gulf War.
Release of this money could not be considered of benefit to Iraq. It is money held for payment to a British steel firm. Morgans of Usk is a reputable British company employing people in an area where such jobs are hard to come by.
You have stated that your intervention on behalf of a British steel company, Mittal, was not influenced by the large donation made to Labour Party funds.
I would, therefore, be grateful if you would sign a letter for the Bank of England, authorising them to release the money which could provide further employment to a steel firm which has not made a large contribution to party funds.
I look forward to the same swift and personal response for a British steel company with 60 employees as you were willing to give to a 'British' company owned by Lakshmi Mittal.
I now have the response to Mr. Davies from 10 Downing street—not from the Prime Minister, I am sad to say, but from somebody called Kathy McCann in the Direct Communications Unit—dated 22 February. It says:
"I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 18 February…The Prime Minister has asked me to arrange for a Minister in the National Assembly For Wales to reply to you direct"
What is the difference between a company that employs 60 people in Wales, and LNM, which employs fewer than 100, and employs 99 per cent. of its work force abroad? It is shocking that the Prime Minister has not decided to support that company.
The water becomes increasingly murky in regard to whether LNM is a British company when we understand that a French company, Usinor, was also bidding for the Sidex plant in Romania. We now know that that French company employs three times as many workers in the United Kingdom as does Mittal's company. It has been in Britain since 1923, not 1995 as in LNM's case, and has a head office in St. Albans and subsidiaries in Birmingham and the west midlands. To use the Prime Minister's definition of what is British, that French company is three times more British—but clearly not as generous in its donations to the Labour party as Mr. Mittal's company. Even the Romanian chamber of commerce publishes LNM holdings as a Dutch company. In any event, Mittal's LNM subsidiary bidding for Sidex is based in the Dutch Antilles in the Caribbean, as we all know.
First, we were led to believe that the Prime Minister had not met Mr. Mittal. Later, however, we learned that the Prime Minister had attended a function at Downing street to thank Labour party donors, and Mr. Mittal was one of the biggest. Yesterday we learned from "The World At One"—this is on the programme's website—that the so-called controller of fundraising when Mittal made his first donation in 1997 was Jonathan Powell. We also know, according to the programme's website, that the original draft of the letter to Adrian Nastase, the Romanian Prime Minister, included the word "friend" to describe Mittal's relationship with the Prime Minister,

881
but that it was crossed out by Jonathan Powell, the chief of staff. Are we now to believe that Jonathan Powell placed his revised version of the letter without talking to the Prime Minister about it at any stage, or that the Prime Minister did not know who Mittal was despite having met him recently? What entered the Prime Minister's head when he signed a letter on behalf of a company based in the Dutch Antilles which directly competed with steel plants in the United Kingdom? It was shedding jobs in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom at the time too.
Even the Foreign Secretary intervened last week. He asked: "if you asked those 100 people"—Mittal's employees—
"whether they feel better about being employed than being on the dole they'll tell you that they'd rather be employed here in Britain".
The Foreign Secretary might as well ask the 6,000 people who lost their steel jobs in the United Kingdom whether they prefer to be on the dole while the Prime Minister supports competitors in Romania.
Mr. Martyn Jones rose—
Mr. Evans: Even worse news for Wales and for steel production is that Mr. Mittal has actively campaigned in the United States of America for barriers to be erected against foreign steel entering that country. The decision will be made by President Bush on 6 March. Not only does that hit Welsh and United Kingdom steel exports, but even worse, the extra capacity from other countries that is turned away from the United States might end up being dumped in the United Kingdom market. A Labour peer, Lord Paul, has described the letter as "unfortunate" and a "slip-up". He said:
"There is no doubt that perhaps the Prime Minister had been feeling that this was a British company…but it just turned out to be it wasn't a British company."
Lord Paul believes that this country is at risk from steel imports.
A huge number of unanswered questions relate to the Mittal affair. The premier's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, seems to be the link man, judging by his talks with his friend, Richard Ralph, the British ambassador in Romania, the redrafting of the letter, the signing of the letter and the invitations to donors to come to No. 10. The sell-out of Welsh jobs is not just naive but incredibly damaging. The stench that pervades the whole affair is nauseating. The evasion is sinister, and the drip, drip of information damning.
From Ecclestone to the Hindujas, from Vaz to Byers, this Government have no shame. Mittal is the latest in a long list. Only an independent inquiry will finally put the issue to rest. If the Government have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of, let us have that inquiry now.
3.15 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: First, I heartily endorse all the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about my former colleague and neighbour, the late Sir Ray Powell, and also the words of encouragement for my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) who, I am sure, will be my colleague for a very long time. There is no truth in the rumour that both of us were two inches
882
shorter at the end of the by-election campaign than we were at the beginning, or that we were beginning to develop webbed feet, although there was a lot of rain in those three weeks.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right to say that I want to talk about the heath service in Wales, if only to correct one or two slightly false impressions and the spin that was given to remarks that I made to The Western Mail a couple of weeks ago. This House is responsible for the money that goes to the Welsh Assembly for spending on public services and promoting prosperity in Wales. In addition, this House passes the primary legislation that the Welsh Assembly implements in Wales.
I want to consider the health service in particular because it is fundamental—good health is what people want most of all. In simple money terms, the Government's record is excellent. Since 1997, the rate of increase in spending on the health service year by year has not been far off 10 per cent. Under this Government, and certainly since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, spending on health in Wales has been three or four times above the rate of inflation. Spending has risen from just over £2 billion in 1997, when we came to power, to almost £3.5 billion this year. Next year, it will be almost £3.75 billion.
A lot of money is spent on the health service in Wales—more per capita than in England. In Wales, we spend about 13 per cent. more per capita than is spent in England. Of course, that has implications for how the Barnett formula works. I shall not make that the thrust of my remarks—I merely point out that it is an issue.
Mr. Wiggin: I am curious about how the Barnett formula works. I visited my local hospital and found that at least 10 per cent. of patients in the hospital in Hereford had come over the border from Wales. Is it not true that not only has health spending gone up in Wales but that there is a multiplier effect as Welsh patients are not going to hospital in Wales?
Mr. Griffiths: This is a united kingdom, and there is a flow of patients from both sides of the border. There is no district general hospital in Powys and for many patients the closest hospital is in Hereford. I do not think that we need to make too much of that.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as that has been the situation for many years, it would not distort the figures in the way that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) suggests?
Mr. Griffiths: Not at all. The fundamental issue is that more is spent on health care per capita in Wales than in England, which needs to be considered in the context of the Barnett formula.
I am not revealing anything new today. I first raised the subject more than two years ago, but I am pleased to come back to it because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. We also need to consider some of the comparisons between the health of people in Wales and in England. For example, hospital admissions are 18 per cent. higher in Wales than in England and admissions to accident and emergency units are 17 per cent. higher. Some 20 per cent. more prescriptions are issued in Wales

883
per capita than in England. There are 19 per cent. more visits to doctors in Wales than in England. Reporting of long-term illness is 28 per cent. higher in Wales and the mortality rate, adjusted and unadjusted, is also higher. There are 19 per cent. more cancer registrations of men in Wales than in England, and 14 per cent. more for women; and deaths from heart disease are 19 per cent. higher in Wales. It is therefore not surprising that we spend more on health care in Wales.
This illustrates the difficulty that we have in dealing with these problems in Wales. However, we are spending more money and there are a lot of good news stories about the health service in Wales. Tomorrow I believe that the new St. David's hospital will be opened in Cardiff, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). In November of this year a new district general hospital will be open on the Baglan moors in the Bro Morgannwg health trust. The trust covers my constituency but the hospital will primarily serve Aberavon and Neath. A new community hospital has at last been agreed for Porthmadog—we were talking about it when I was a Health Minister in 1997–98—and there will also be a new community hospital in the Rhondda. That is about £35 million worth of investment.
Some £4.5 million has been allocated to the second phase of the children's hospital once the magnificent fund-raising effort has put into place phase 1, which has almost been achieved. There is £6.3 million going towards medical undergraduate facilities at Swansea. To illustrate how long all this takes, the decision was made in 1997–98 to increase the number of medical undergraduates in Wales, and that has to be planned for.
There are more nurses and midwives training and more will be finishing their training over the next few years than ever before. In the professions allied to medicine, there are increases in the numbers in training. The diatribe and criticism of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley cannot be accepted because when the Tories were in power, the number of beds in Wales was reduced and the number of nurses also took a dive. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he almost reached the point of asset stripping both the physical and intellectual infrastructure of the health service. He left the Welsh health service in a deplorable state.
We are spending £10 million on the upgrade of the cancer facilities at the Singleton hospital at Swansea, with £5.5 million going to the accident and emergency unit at Morriston. Wherever we look, there is a tremendous increase in spending. Things are improving and more staff are coming on-stream, but we must accept, in the words of Dr. Bob Broughton of the British Medical Association, that we have had 20 years of under-investment and it will take a bit of time to turn the ship around. Some 88 additional consultant posts have been made available for Wales and £9 million has been allocated to the new clinical school in Swansea this year.
This year, 10,000 more patients have been treated in the health service than the year before. However, we have to accept that waiting lists in some areas are increasing. Fortunately, we can see a chink of light at the end of this gloomy and difficult tunnel: in areas where the Welsh Assembly has begun to target the waiting lists for heart disease and cataract operations, there has been a small reduction. Because I know that the Welsh Assembly is focusing on other areas as well, I am confident that over
884
the next few years we will see a gradual improvement. I emphasise that it will be gradual because it takes time to get the staff in place for this work to be done. Even today there are many consultant posts in Wales waiting to be filled, not because they have not been advertised but because it is difficult to find the people to fill them. We need to be patient.
The Western Mail has said that £500 million more could have been available to spend on the health service in Wales over the past five years. Instead of saying that those figures are calculations of my own, it might be more accurate to say that I dumped all the information published by the NHS Executive on the cost of the 100 most popular hospital in-patient and day-case treatments on my assistants and asked them to work on those figures. What they came up with is that in 1996–97, if all hospitals in Wales had reached the average for just those treatments carried out in every hospital, there would have been a saving of about £24 million which could have been invested in the health service. If all hospitals had reached the average of the best three, the saving would have been almost £100 million which could have been invested in the health services in Wales.
I was trying to tell The Western Mail that if the Welsh Assembly were to look carefully at where hospitals were most efficient and effective in carrying out their work, it would be possible to have substantial additional funds available to spend on the health service in Wales and make a significant impact on waiting lists. In fact, I have already put that point to the Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt. Over a five-year period, I guess that between £400 million and £500 million could have been invested in the health service in Wales. The Welsh Assembly is looking at these specific problems and I am sure that we will see an expansion of the hospitals which are proving to be the most effective in Wales. Therefore, I am encouraged by what is happening. Despite some of the gloomy headline statistics, I believe that the chinks of light showing in matters such as heart disease and cataracts will be rolled out across other specialisms. I am confident that in four or five years we will see a much improved health service in Wales that we will be happy talking to our constituents about.
Mr. Wiggin: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the increased bureaucracy? I appreciate that he did not research those figures himself, but the principle is laudable. I am curious because the five health authorities will be abolished in April next year to be replaced by 22 local health boards with similar powers. Those will be backed by as many as 12 partnerships and three area offices. The latest plan for health in Wales is to replace the five existing health authorities with 37 organisations. It is hard to understand how the Government have managed to increase spending by so much and achieve so little. In the words of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies)—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Interventions are meant to be short.
Mr. Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the additional spending has resulted in 10,000 more treatments a year in Wales. That is significant. On restructuring the health service, he might know that I do not think that the plan is right at the moment. However,

885
his description of it traduces what is meant to happen in Wales. There is a commitment that no more money should be spent on bureaucracy. I remain confident that we will make progress and that better health care will be provided year on year.
3.31 pm
Lembit Öpik: I welcome the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) to the Chamber and congratulate him on beating the Liberal Democrat candidate, Veronica Watkins. I only regret that I do not know enough about him to take advantage of the fact that he cannot intervene prior to making his maiden speech. I simply pay tribute to his predecessor, Ray Powell. Some said that he was an unguided missile or a loose cannon, and he was described as a wild man by the media and uncontrollable by the Whips. I have every hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue in that tradition and perhaps one day join the Liberal Democrats.
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lembit Öpik: I cannot resist it.
Kevin Brennan: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) cannot intervene, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to me why a leaflet on which his picture appeared on the day of the by-election called my hon. Friend "London's Labour lackey"? Is not that typical Liberal Democrat politics—sneer locally, creep nationally?
Lembit Öpik: It hurts me to the core to have offended the hon. Gentleman and, believe it or not, I have something to say about that kind of politics, and not just to Labour Members, but to Members of my party too. I hope that hon. Members will be greatly interested in my comments.
It has been a good year for the Liberal Democrats in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) took over from his predecessor and we made good progress elsewhere. Indeed, I managed to win a hotly contested election to lead my party on Welsh matters and prevented splits in the parliamentary party by immediately appointing my hon. Friend as my deputy, having considered the alternatives.
I said that the comment by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) was poignant. My speech is directed not just at Welsh politicians or the Welsh public, but at the Welsh press. I ask all three groups to think seriously about the concepts that I am about to advance. Politicians are doing something wrong. If we get things right, perhaps we will help to resuscitate the lost confidence in the trade that we have chosen as our career.
My speech is also directed at other parties, including my party in Wales. I want people to think seriously about the potential for turning politics into a competition, not a war. I question the way in which we run down the character of our trade and then feign surprise when people do not turn out to vote or disappointment when the media imply that we are all on the make and that we do not act in the interests of the people who elected us.
886
At a press conference in the Cardiff Assembly last Monday, I was accused of patronising the Welsh press. Most of the journalists were interested in the story relating to Mike German and the possibility of a reshuffle. They asked the same question again and again. After we answered it, I suggested that the issue lacked resonance with the Welsh public and that people really wanted to talk about things that made a difference to them. It got quite heated. It seems I had disturbed a hornet's nest by questioning the ability of the press to report news that matters. The journalists thought that I was suggesting that they should not report on the matter that interested them.
Afterwards, I went to the media floor in the Assembly to make amends with one of the people who felt most patronised. She told me that she also regarded me as naive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name names."] I will not because Jo told me not to. She claimed that I was angry with her, to which I shouted, "No, I'm not", and proved her point. It struck me later that the exchange was the opposite of what I had in mind for a new agenda in Welsh politics. It is with humility—I take some of the responsibility on myself—that I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members seriously consider launching a campaign in Wales, ahead of anywhere else in the United Kingdom, to change the way in which we do politics.
As I think about the accusations of naivety and being patronising, I realise that they were said in response to a problem that we have created. For whatever reason, the agenda has become so set in convention that aggression, opposition, spin and negative briefing about each other have become so acceptable that efforts to try a new way of doing things are dismissed as naive and even idealistic. Is the new focus on politics in Wales so unfeasible that we are not going to make a difference? Is Welsh politics so doomed to remain as it is that my speech today might again be regarded as naive?
Mr. Wiggin: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman's party will no longer be in a coalition with the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly?
Lembit Öpik: The context of that question is so odd that I am unable to understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that a positive new style of politics would prevent parties from working together. Surely he realises that if politics is a competition and not a war, one works in league with other people and other parties when that best serves the public interest. Obviously one maintains a healthy critical capability when appropriate.
Wales has another golden opportunity to lead the way in conducting politics differently. At the heart of the new agenda, about which we talked so optimistically when the referendum was held on the Welsh Assembly, must be the concept of focusing on outcomes rather than process. The public do not care much about the political process. Why should they? Those who are most interested in the political process get involved in it. The rest pay tax in the expectation that we manage the political process to achieve the outcomes that we were elected to achieve. That is the point of paying the tax that enables politicians to be employed. We often forget that and settle into the comfortable arguments that take place in the House, perhaps drawing the media into that club at the same time. We forget that the true client of our activities is getting switched off by what we say and disillusioned by the fact that politicians seem more interested in attacking each other than working together in the interests of Wales.

887
I have given the matter a great deal of thought and have decided that the failing of the system is really a failing of politicians to lead the thinking of the nation of Wales. We fail to provide a motivating, inspirational, powerful and visionary agenda that the media naturally gravitate towards. We should be talking about an agenda that is likely to succeed—a vision that is secondary to the people driving it, who are focused on the results that it can achieve.
That is the big point for me. With the focus in the press on individuals, scurrilous stories and questions of corruption, we have begun to reap the consequences of our attitudes and behaviour towards each other. Very rarely do the great achievements of the human race rest on the memory of an individual. The great achievement of the Apollo moon landing was travelling to the moon, landing a man on it and returning him safely to earth. The individual concerned happened to be Neil Armstrong, but the triumph was collective.
Mr. Bryant: Is it not ironic that, despite his fine sentiments about it being more important for us to talk about outcomes than processes, so far, apart from mention of the moon, which was a little dangerous coming from him, he has talked solely about processes and not said anything about the conditions facing the people in Wales?
Lembit Öpik: I recognise that I was taking a risk in trying to talk about the character of politics in Wales and that it is unconventional of me to try to reintroduce an element of soul and a different modus operandi in Welsh politics. The hon. Gentleman can listen to the rest of my speech to determine whether I should refer explicitly to health, education and so forth. This seemed too good an opportunity to lose to share my thinking on what I consider to be an important matter. I shall certainly respect further interventions from the hon. Gentleman and others on the point.
Kevin Brennan: I respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman is putting his case, but is he telling the House that, from now on, locally delivered Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets will contain the high-minded moral politics that he is advocating? Will he make that pledge now?
Lembit Öpik: I can most certainly give the hon. Gentleman the pledge that all the "Focus" leaflets that I personally write will be exactly along those lines, but let me make a serious point. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am not condemning other parties for their lack of vision or for succumbing to the temptation to demean Welsh politics, but that I am speaking to, among others, members of my party. Indeed, as the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who has not been dragged to his place because he is some prime offender in the party, to engage in that process. I emphasise, for exactly the reason to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that I am speaking to my party and inviting Welsh Liberal Democrats to consider the points that I am making. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has already read my speech; his presence indicates assent—[Laughter.]
I return to examples of great triumphs that are not associated with the names of the individuals concerned. Lloyd George, who of course created pensions, was not
888
remembered by most members of the public who receive pensions as having done so. We have heard about Nye Bevan and the national health service, although I would point out that the great Liberal, William Beveridge, gave him the idea in the first place. Examples of individuals being associated with personal triumphs or personal armies of visionaries are rare.
On account of his obsession with leeks, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) might be remembered for an army of leekers who go around the country swapping metric measures for imperial ones, just as Robert Peel is remembered for creating the police—peelers. Indeed, constables are called bobbies in honour of his first name.
Mr. Evans: What has name-calling got to do with the first 10 minutes of the hon. Gentleman's speech?
Lembit Öpik: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would take my remarks in the same jovial spirit in which he made his comments. It was a tentative joke; I should have known better. I apologise to the House in order to avoid having to make a personal statement later because he did not laugh.
In talking about the difference between outcomes and focusing on individuals, I should like right hon. and hon. Members to consider two crucial and fundamental points. First, the obsession with gossiping about each other in the press and attempts to drag down individuals has arisen because ideology in Welsh and, indeed, British political life has evaporated. We cannot blame the media for taking on the agenda that we have set.
We saw a good example of that when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley sought to criticise the Government on the continuing Mittal matter and to imply a degree of wrongdoing on their part. Although it is perfectly legitimate for any Opposition party to raise such matters—indeed, perhaps it is our responsibility to do so—emphasising them for a third of a speech is very tricky when the speaker comes from the same political party that has been tarnished time and again as a result of bringing the name of politics into disrepute. It is just possible that the Conservative party can score some points from the Labour party on the matter, but there is little doubt that the ultimate loser is our profession, because the public do not make the fine distinctions that we are able to make in debates on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Evans: What about Mike German?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman mentions Mike German and is no doubt referring to the continuing police inquiry into alleged matters with regard to that individual. What is the political benefit to us as serious politicians of implying guilt when an inquiry is being conducted exactly to establish such circumstances? Every individual in the House surely accords in their heart with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. There is no benefit or upside to implying the guilt of an individual before an inquiry has even been done. The hon. Gentleman highlights exactly the kind of thing that we do to each other and have all done from time to time. Ultimately, however, the true loser is Welsh political life.
Mr. Bryant: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that in all matters it is right for politicians, as in any line

889
of business, to be judged fairly and, indeed, swiftly. In the incident to which he has referred, I wish that there could be a swift resolution of the police proceedings, as slow justice is no justice for a politician. However, does he think that it is right or wrong for politicians to try to intervene on behalf of people in their party in processes in which the police are engaged?
Lembit Öpik: I assume that there is a deeper intent in that question. The hon. Gentleman can be more explicit if he wants me to answer a specific question. It seems self-evident from what I am saying and from what we all believe that it would not be right to try in any way to corrupt an investigation. I do not think that anyone would disagree with what he and I have just said.
I turn to the important distinction between taking a more positive and perhaps more principled attitude to politics, and maintaining the critical faculties that the Government and Opposition parties must maintain. It is fair to criticise the Government for their ineffectiveness in, for example, fixing rundown public services, but we do not engender any faith or confidence in the public by running down other political parties when one's own party has not done any better. It is all very well to criticise the failings of any individual organisation, but it is incumbent on the critic to indicate a better way of proceeding.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was asked a direct question about taxation while criticising the Government on the matter, but he was not willing to answer it. He suggested that savings and best practice would be a way of finding the extra money in the health service, but I do not know of a single political party that stood for the 2001 general election suggesting that worst or second-best practice was acceptable.
In the serious debate, once we get into it, we have to provide serious alternatives if we suggest that there is a different way to do things. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do?"] Conservative Members ask a good question. They can see what I would do. As the House knows, the Liberal-Democrat-led coalition in Cardiff is doing tremendous work and achieving significant outcomes for the people of Wales—everything from implementing a more equitable student funding arrangement to securing effective economic performance, from achieving what I believe was a better performance than the UK average in response to the foot and mouth crisis to introducing the Children's Commissioner for Wales, from abolishing museum charges to introducing free school milk. All those things show that it is possible to work with another party in the interests of the public while simultaneously maintaining an independent identity. Right hon. and hon. Members have busily campaigned for the new sort of politics. Part of that is accepting that in the competition of multi-party politics, one can still work in league in a positive fashion and deliver results that are far more meaningful to the public than much of the debate held in this Chamber.
That does not mean that one has to abandon one's ability to criticise. There is currently a big debate going on in the House about taxation. Personally, I believe that direct taxation is the fairest form of taxation, but there are differences of view in both my party and the Labour party. However, we will never make progress in that debate if
890
most of the time the issue is used as a political battering ram by different political parties. People are switched off by such an approach.
I believe that it is probably necessary to increase taxation a little bit to achieve a better health service. However, my saying that raises the danger that, instead of a rational debate in the pub—[Laughter.] Fair enough—I meant to say that instead of a rational debate in the public domain, all that happens is that the arguments are reduced to a simple yah-boo debate about whether one is in favour of increasing taxation or reducing it. That is patronising to the public, who would be far more interested in hearing the arguments for or against. That is shown by the example of my party, which was the only one that went into the general election explicitly committed to increasing direct income tax; we gained more seats than any other party in the 2001 general election.
Of the two crucial points I want to highlight, the first is balance and the second is that, as long as we continue to be sceptical about our ability to change the way in which we conduct politics, that change will not happen. I was asked to whom I am addressing my remarks today. I am saying to members of my party in Wales, and to right hon. and hon. Members present today and members of their parties in Wales, that it is up to us to decide whether to carry on with the same old tired yah-boo politics with which the public are clearly disillusioned, or to give a different type of politics a chance.
I entered politics because I believe that politics can perform a positive and important function to improve the quality of people's lives. I did not enter politics to slam, rubbish and run down people in other parties who are themselves genuinely committed to the same goals. I became a Member of Parliament because I believed—my belief has been confirmed—that thanks to our proud democracy, some of the best brains and most sincere and committed individuals in the country end up here. I am of course pointing at the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Mr. Bryant: There is only one person there.
Lembit Öpik: Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have to rule on whether two people constitutes "some", but I am willing to accord the compliment to other hon. Members present.
The House knows exactly what I mean. We have wonderful debates, and honest and sometimes sincere conversations that would make us politically vulnerable if others heard them, when we are outside the Chamber. Sadly, we sometimes leave our mutual respect at the door and take any opportunity to run down each other's party because we believe that we will derive political advantage from doing so. We can carry on doing that if that is what we want to do; we can carry on messing about, and then getting the business done when we are not in the Chamber. Alternatively, we can start trying to discover what the Welsh public want to hear from Welsh Members of Parliament, and what sort of outcomes would restore the Welsh people's confidence to the extent that they vote in higher numbers. We can decide whether we want to continue to behave in a manner that has made it acceptable in the media to say things like, "This MP was proved to have lied, but what do you expect from a politician?" Alternatively, we can challenge that and say that we are, on the whole, honourable individuals who are genuinely trying to do the right thing.

891
I recently wrote an article in which I asked what is missing from politics? That question prompted many responses from around the country. Zöe Phillips said compassion; Derek Phillips, conviction; Fred Davies, openness and initiatives; Prue Bray, trust; Paul Wheeler vision and passion. Funnily enough, none said that there should be more short speeches, although one said that what was needed in politics was more people like me. Few Estonians are likely to stand at the next general election, but I have noted the comment. A chap called Bill Schardt offered three answers: issues, community and solutions.
However cynical Members of Parliament might be about my choice of subject, I ask them to take my words seriously. It was not an easy choice to tackle what lies at the heart of the disillusionment in Welsh political life—especially given that I know that there will be a degree of doubt about the nature of my contribution to the St. David's day debate—but if I had not done this, no one else would have. If I am not prepared to say to my party and others that we should start to focus on the outcomes that matter to people, there is little chance of change.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, there you have it. My deal with other Members of Parliament is that I will do what I can to make sure that "Focus" publications across Wales reflect the approach that I have described today. I am not a dictator—I cannot force people to do that—[Interruption.] A rebellion is breaking out behind me. I will also try to ensure that the high principles I have outlined are reflected in the activities of Liberal Democrat politicians in Wales. I cannot promise to succeed, but I can promise the House this: if we all work together, we will succeed. Perhaps, just once, we could all be a little more high minded than to try to score points when other people are doing their best to serve this country and Wales. Were we to do that, we might actually be thanked by people who believe that it is too long since true vision guided politics. Through our efforts in Wales, we might make 21st-century politics a little less disappointing to the people who pay our salaries.
3.58 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am grateful for this opportunity. It is with great pride and not a little humility that I rise to make my maiden speech. My pride is not of a selfish kind: it is born of the recognition of the proud history of Labour socialist parliamentarians from Wales, past and present, who have fought for working people, fought injustice in all forms, and fought for a better future for all regardless of chance of birth or of privilege. I feel humility as I take my first few faltering steps as a Member of Parliament, because I know that I have an immense debt to repay to the people of Ogmore who have placed their trust in me. I will strive to serve them to the best of my ability at all times and in all my actions.
Before progressing, may I add my own tribute to those already made today to the late Sir Ray Powell, a loyal servant of the Labour party who represented Ogmore in Parliament from 1979? He championed the rights of grandparents in the Grandparents Rights Bill, which was a major influence on the subsequent Children Act 1989. He championed the rights of shop workers during the Sunday trading debates and was influential, as we have already heard, in the development of Portcullis House. I never met Sir Ray Powell, and I am sure that if I had, we would not have agreed on everything, but his reputation as
892
an outspoken parliamentarian on behalf of the people of Ogmore and a true champion of his communities is a legacy in which his widow Marion and his daughter Janice Gregory, Assembly Member for Ogmore, can take great pride. Let us honour Sir Ray Powell and all those parliamentarians and advocates of social justice and opportunity for all who have represented Ogmore since 1918, including Walter Padley, Vernon Hartshorn and others.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to my uncle, the late I for Davies, Member of Parliament for Gower for many years and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales. He spoke many times in the Chamber, and was a man of dignity, intelligence and vision, a thoroughly decent and truly honourable man. He is fondly remembered by his family and all those who knew him; I hope am a credit to him in the House, as well as to my parents, my wife and all those who sent me here.
I have the immense privilege of representing the people of Ogmore, a landlocked community of diverse character; it ranges from the former mining communities of the Garw, Llynfi and Ogmore valleys, not forgetting the communities of Gilfach Goch and Evanstown. It also stretches down, as has been mentioned, to more rural areas and the busy communities of Pencoed, Tondu, Llanharan and Sarn that border the M4. In the hinterland, the communities of Bettws, Llangeinor, Blackmill and Shwt nestle at the base of the three valleys. Ogmore is a diverse community.
Ogmore is also the home of many myths, legends and heroes. In Llangynwyd at new year the skull of a horse with a white shroud—the Mari Llywd—is paraded to fend off evil spirits. My colleagues back in Ogmore have said it has worked politically since 1918. Llangynwyd is also the home of the famous tragedy known as the "Maid of Cefn Ydfa" and the romantic protagonists are buried at Llangynwyd church. Llangeinor was the birthplace, in 1723, of the radical thinker Dr. Richard Price, whose treatises on liberty and the American revolution were influential in the development of the American constitution. He was renowned for walking to London at the age of 18. I will not try to emulate that trek, but I shall travel regularly by train. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will take the same time."] Indeed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for attempting to reverse the shameful fiasco of rail privatisation and under-investment over many years.
A fortnight ago, a Welsh Sunday paper curiously speculated that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) and I were jointly to coach the Welsh team after the sudden departure of Graham Henry. As we approach Dydd Gwyl Dewi—St. David's day—and the Welsh international against Italy, I hope that the spirit of our local legendary rugby heroes will inspire the Welsh team. J. J. Williams, Chico Hopkins, John Devereaux, Scott Gibbs, Alan Bateman and many others show the formidable talent that we have on the sporting field in Ogmore.
The legacy of song is powerful, as the Welsh national anthem "Hen Wlad fy Nhadau" is thought to have been first sung in public in a chapel in Maesteg in 1856. In addition to our excellent local choirs, it may come as a surprise to hon. Members that we lay claim to Kylie Minogue, whose mother and grandmother reside in the Ogmore constituency. The legacy is continued as new

893
talent emerges. Big Shiny Cave, a local band of youngsters, are soon to be in the national televised finals of a contest for bands. I wish them the best of luck and look forward to welcoming them to Westminster.
Names of famous collieries are testament to the mining heritage of the area and resonate down the years: Ocean, Wyndham, Western, and others. The seam opened by the Wyndham colliery brought forth coal known as "Best Admiralty Large" which fired the Navy's steamships in world war one; it was regarded as the best seam of such coal in south Wales, if not the world.
As a keen hill walker, I can testify to the rugged beauty of the hills and valleys of Ogmore, and the picturesque settings of the country parks and lowlands. After extensive reclamation after the years of heavy industry and mining, the valleys are returning to their natural beauty. With my background as a lecturer in tourism, I cannot fail to see the potential for tourism and recreation in Ogmore, which is rich in natural beauty, industrial heritage, culture and folklore. Tourism is not the only way forward, but it adds a vital spark to the regeneration of an area, and can transform the image of a region.
The classic film "The Proud Valley" was filmed in the Garw valley and starred Paul Robeson, the famous African-American athlete, singer and actor, and a keen advocate of civil rights. He rightly regarded the film as his finest. More recently "Very Annie Mary" was filmed in the Garw valley in 1999, featuring one of our best local choirs, the Ogmore Valley male voice choir.
There is a link to the future too. Paul Robeson and the film industry are relevant as we look and hope for the development in the near future of a major film complex on the site of a former opencast mine. I will lend my full support to the relevant Labour Member in the Welsh Assembly in that endeavour, and invite my fellow Welsh MPs to do so. Not only would the complex lead to direct job creation: it would transform the image of a region and a country through the powerful medium of movies. The impact on tourism is well understood.
One of the most exciting aspects of community life in Ogmore is the role that voluntary groups and regeneration partnerships play in holding communities together, particularly as they go through transformations, with an ageing and declining population, the relocation of jobs and the challenges of leisure provision for youngsters and the aged. Grassroots organisations often best understand local demands, and need our encouragement and moreover our practical support. The Blaengarw Workmen's hall and the Berwyn centre in Nantymoel, and all the activities that take place there, epitomise the success story of community regeneration that is seen throughout Ogmore.
Volunteers and dedicated staff on limited funds are pulling together to make a real difference to their communities. There are drop-in centres in Llanharran and Maesteg, the latter achieving excellent results with youngsters who dropped out of the education system and the establishment. The youth group in Nantyffyllon repairs vandalised benches and bus shelters. At the Boys and Girls Club in Nantymoel, which I have visited, 80 youngsters meet four times a week; I saw them hanging from the rafters and engaged in a range of activities. Much valuable work goes on and deserves praise and credit.
894
I appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales to liaise with our colleagues in the National Assembly and relevant agencies further to develop the funding mechanisms that would reward the success stories of the voluntary and charitable sectors, especially those that work in our poorest communities, by encouraging the streamlining of applications for lottery funding and other grants and building on the generational funding that is such a success in the Communities First programme.
Ogmore is diverse, not only in landscape and people, but in prosperity and life chances. Some parts have experienced inward investment, infrastructure development and population growth; it is vital to continue that growth, as it benefits the whole constituency. However, we also have pockets of multiple deprivation, with more children living in poverty, lower levels of educational attainment, lower pay, poor-quality housing and higher numbers of people on income replacement benefits. Those factors combine to give a lower quality of life, a lower life expectancy, and a higher rate of mortality. It does not have to be that way; it should not be that way. I am determined that that will not continue, and I know that my Labour colleagues are equally determined.
I am proud to represent the Labour party, which has established a national minimum wage that some Opposition parties could not find time to support. That, combined with the working families tax credit, has put £30 per week on average into the purses of the poorest families in Ogmore. It is not a fortune, but it makes it pay to work, and it puts more food on the table.
I am proud to represent the Labour party that has delivered an above-inflation and above-earnings increase in pensions, and provided the £200 winter fuel payment for all pensioner households and free television licences for over-75-year-olds.
I am proud to represent the party that has agreed the largest ever compensation settlement in western European history in respect of miners' compensation, after years of prevarication and denial of liability from the Tories. Let me assure hon. Members present that I shall be working with fellow Labour Members of Parliament representing mining communities throughout the UK to ensure that full and final payment is made as swiftly as possible and in every single case.
As a GMB member, I am proud to represent the party that has a long tradition of co-operation with the unions and promotion of the public sector. Long may it continue, and long may we continue to work together with the unions to promote the best interests of the public who receive our services, and the workers who play such a crucial role in delivering those vital services.
On these and many other issues, I am proud to represent a party that delivers social justice in a real and pragmatic way, but there is more to be done. Nye Bevan described himself as a pragmatic idealist. He believed in getting things done to improve the lot of other people, and that meant dealing in reality, not in utopian visions. I will strive to work with the Labour Government in Westminster, and in close liaison with the National Assembly and local authority, and with all the agencies and the voluntary sector to bring real improvements to the lives of the people of Ogmore.

895
Let me finish by thanking again the people of Ogmore for their trust, and acknowledging the supreme efforts of my team, who fought a positive campaign and worked hard to present a positive message for the future of Ogmore, and the future of our children and grandchildren.
The Ogmore by-election was the 10th since Labour's massive mandate in the general election in 1997. It was the 10th to take place, and the 10th that Labour has won, and won decisively. I make these simple observations in closing: there are still no Tory MPs in Wales, and apart from the special circumstances surrounding the by-election caused by the death of our late right hon. Friend Donald Dewar, this was the worst result of any nationalist challenge since 1997. That is echoing so loudly through the valleys of south Wales that it can be heard in Scotland as well.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House with my maiden speech, particularly on the occasion of the Welsh day debate. I look forward to many other occasions when I may catch the Speaker's eye, and further the concerns of my constituents and the cause of social justice in Wales, the United Kingdom, and worldwide. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.
4.13 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on a confident and interesting speech—erroneous in parts, but a good speech well delivered, which I am sure augurs well for him.
I also visited Ogmore, of course, unsuccessfully, and I got wet a few times as well. I come from Snowdonia, so I know what rain is all about, but with such rain every day, I could not understand why the Ogmore farmers do not grow rice. I found that the Conservative candidate was terribly wet. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore sincerely on his speech.
I shall speak about objective 1 funding in Wales and the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. One of the main issues that has concerned the National Assembly and been highlighted in recent weeks is the disparity in funds allocated to the 15 local partnerships. Evidence from the funding allocated to the 447 projects approved thus far demonstrates clearly that some of the more prosperous—if I may so describe them—parts of the objective 1 area seem to be doing well in terms of allocation per head, but those in the most deprived areas are doing badly. It is extremely worrying that the funds are not getting through to the areas most in need. That might well create a problem in achieving the increases in gross domestic product that it was hoped would result from objective 1.
I consider, as does my party, that ways must be found to achieve a more balanced allocation, so that every part of the objective 1 area benefits more equitably from the funding. That is why Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, highlighted the need to set more regional economic targets for the Welsh economy. Regional targets are essential if we are to ensure more balanced development. Adopting targets only for the objective 1 area as a whole and for the non-objective 1 area will not succeed in gaining the necessary increase in GDP. Ways must be found to target the most deprived areas.
One relevant factor is the quality of the local partnerships and the varying amounts of experience in preparing applications for European funding. Action such
896
as more training for local partnerships that are under-performing must be undertaken urgently. What is the Welsh European Funding Office doing to address the problem?
The current financial position is that by the end of December 2001, commitments totalling £288.5 million have been made. However, the indicative financial allocation set for the end of December 2001 in the single programming document was £347.92 million. There is thus a shortfall of more than £59 million. The programme is about £60 million behind schedule.
The reasons given for that do not stack up. In a paper recently presented by WEFO to the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly on 16 January, it was stated that
"a key factor in not yet allocating funds up to the level of the Indicative Financial Allocation set out in the SPD was the decision by the Infrastructure Partnership and the Business Assets Strategy Partnership to spend sufficient time developing an Infrastructure Strategy before allocating grant."
The truth is that it took two years for an infrastructure partnership to be set up in the first place. In 2000 the Labour Government in Cardiff instructed the Welsh Development Agency to set up seven regional partnerships to use objective 1 money, but three crucial sectors were omitted: energy, transport, and infrastructure for information and communications technology.
Over the past two years the matter has been brought up time and again, but the Executive have done nothing about it. As a direct result, it was impossible to apply for money for projects in those sectors during the first two years of the programme. We hear in this place how important infrastructure and ICT are, but we are being held back.
In the course of my speech, I shall put numerous questions to the Secretary of State. I do not expect that he or the Minister who winds up will be able to address them all, but I would appreciate a response in the form of a letter in due course. I do not mean to be unreasonable, but I am sure that these are matters of common interest to all who are concerned about the Welsh economy.
As I said, applications could not be made for money for the three sectors that I specified. The delay became unacceptable and has undoubtedly contributed towards increasing the gap between the indicative financial allocation and the commitments already made up to the end of 2001. That demonstrates the incompetence of the Government in Wales in running the objective 1 programme.
It is estimated that more than 30 partnerships and committees are directly involved in administering the programme. There are 15 local partnerships, 10 regional partnerships, one programme monitoring committee and four strategy partnerships. On 18 January, the chair of the monitoring committee announced the establishment of two new groups—a monitoring group and an advisory group on implementation. With so many bodies, it is no surprise that people are confused about the whole process. Apparently, the private sector had had enough months ago, when the Confederation of British Industry decided that it would not actively participate in the programme, saying that business people did not have the time to attend meetings and spend hours attempting to find their way through the process.
I know that the issue has a resonance across the political spectrum and there is a need to simplify matters in order to proceed as quickly as we can. There is a danger

897
of the whole process being hijacked by local authorities. It seems that those who know how to play the game, as it were, are doing well, but the danger of that for small organisations is that if they are out of favour with a local authority, there is not much chance of their being successful in their applications.
It is unhelpful to compare our performance with that of other UK regions that are in receipt of objective 1 assistance. Such comparison is unfair and pointless because each area has different problems and a different way of tackling them. However, we should be comparing the performance of our programme with our targets, as set out in the single programming document. As the failure to reach the indicative final allocation anticipated by the end of 2001 shows, it is evident from such comparison that we must improve our performance, and fast.
There is significant under-commitment in priority 5 of the programme, which concentrates on rural development and sustainable use of natural resources. Several hon. Members have mentioned problems in rural areas. The problems should be highlighted and we should deal with them urgently. Measure 7 of that priority, which targets enhancement and protection of the natural environment and countryside management projects, is seriously under-committed. Will the Secretary of State liaise with the WEFO and the First Minister about that? We need to encourage the establishment of quality projects under that aspect of the programme, and the need is greater now because of the fallout of foot and mouth, and so on.
We must emphasise the need to establish a wider sense of ownership of the programme. Action needs to be taken to ensure that some of the big players, such as the WDA, do not feel that they own it. The process tends to be finance-driven rather than policy-driven, and there is genuine fear that that will continue, as the new regulations introduced for 2000 to 2006 exert annual pressure to demonstrate that money is being spent and require proof of spending at the end of every two years. The whole programme may well be preoccupied with the need to spend, and concentrate on that instead of quality. There is a need to shift from a finance-led approach to a policy-led approach.
We also need to de-bureaucratise the process. It must be dug out of the realm of civil servants. There are concerns that elected Members of the National Assembly and the Economic Development Committee in particular do not have a sufficient role in the process, and that it is dominated by the Government of Wales and officials. Of course, the Assembly as a whole should have a role. Perhaps it could undertake an annual review to consider how EU programmes are progressing. That work could be done in a wider framework of considering domestic performance policy as well. Such an arrangement would obviously provide an opportunity for approved integration and cohesiveness between the European Union and domestic programmes of the sort that has been lacking in the past, and would also avoid duplication. The Assembly as a whole should have overall control of all European Union programmes, as it should ensure that objective 1 contributes to overall economic development in Wales. A lack of overall strategy in the objective 1 SPD, with the lack of adequate baseline data and cohesion between strategy, priorities and the measures within them, directly resulted from the fact that no overall national economic
898
development strategy was in place. Such a strategy should have been in place at the beginning of the National Assembly's work. It would have guided the preparation of objective 1 and other important programmes.
That leads me to the comprehensive spending review. As we know, the Chancellor's CSR is due for publication later this year. It will set out the funding arrangement for 2004 to 2007, and will therefore cover the second half of the objective 1 programme. In effect, it will determine how much funding Wales will receive not only as part of Barnett, but—we hope—in the form of additional resources to cover EU funds.
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that Wales will receive additional resources over and above Barnett to meet the EU funds that we are entitled to draw down? What discussions has he had with the First Minister about the need to ensure that Wales will receive the full amount of resources, in addition to the block grant, to cover all EU funds that we are entitled to draw down? What discussions has he had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on this issue? Last time, we did not receive the full amount necessary to draw down all the European funding or any additional resources to match fund the projects, so we must call for an additional allocation on top of the block grant. I am fully aware that the Secretary of State knows that, and I hope that he will lobby as hard as he can. I know that it is a difficult issue and that there are other competing claims on Treasury moneys, but I ask him please to listen. This is an opportunity that Wales must not miss, for the good of the whole objective 1 area and beyond.
The mid-term evaluation of the objective 1 programme in 2003 offers the opportunity to reconsider the priorities and measures and the financial allocations that they contain. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the First Minister on the mid-term evaluation of objective 1 funding? What discussions has he had with the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the next round of European structural funds from 2006 onwards? What guarantees can he and the First Minister give that they will ensure that the interests of Wales—it has to be said that they differ from those of the UK Government—will be heard? It is not in the interests of the UK Government to argue for increases in the amount of structural funding that is allocated to the UK, because, as we know, the Fontainebleau agreement acts as a disincentive. Welsh interests differ from those of the UK Government as far as the next round of funding is concerned. My party believes that the principle of additionality must and should be applied to each individual programme, instead of only at the member state level, to ensure that structural funding is additional to domestic funding. The baseline for the future financing of the structural funds should be increased from the current 0.45 per cent. of EU gross domestic product to at least 0.65 per cent. The money could be found by moving resources from the common agricultural policy. However, we would oppose any moves to renationalise regional policy, as there must be a strong regional dimension in cohesion policy.
Since the last comprehensive spending review, Wales has received, on average, an extra £140 million a year above the Barnett block to cover the extra cost of EU grants. Of course, that is welcome. It has gone fairly far, but it has not gone far enough to pave the way for drawing down all the European structural funds and using them to

899
their full potential. Of course, extra money is welcome, but we need more money again. I know that the Secretary of State hears such views all the time, but in the context of this particular debate, I must point out that it is absolutely vital for a substantial addition to be made to the Welsh block grant. I am not telling him anything that he does not know himself; but it is none the less vital.
Some petty politics has been going on on both sides of the House. Some claim that the extra money is the much-needed match funding, but unfortunately, it is not. This is the money that is given to Wales by Europe. Unfortunately, it has to go through the Treasury first. In order to use the money, it is necessary to match the amount in addition to its usual budget—the infamous match funding. Unfortunately, we have not seen a penny of that money from the Treasury, and it has to be drawn down from the various departmental budgets, which are already stretched to their limits in the National Assembly. I doubt whether any match funding will be provided by the Treasury in the next CSR unless the Secretary of State and the First Minister lobby hard to urge upon the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor the need to provide these much-needed funds so that the European grants can be used to their full potential and the National Assembly does not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. I congratulate the Chancellor on providing the European component of grants in addition to the Barnett block in the last CSR. I urge the Secretary of State to ask the Chancellor to continue that precedent by doing the same again this year.
We are approaching a make-or-break period for the structural fund programmes. They have been slow to start and it has taken some time to get the infrastructure in place. Academics, economists and politicians on all sides realise that we are now in the middle of the seven-year process and that this is an important time. The last CSR covered two to four years of the European funding programme and provided a welcome £140 million on top of Barnett. During the middle years of the programme, most of the grants come from Europe. We therefore hope and expect that there will be a significant increase in the funds that are made available in this year's CSR. Plaid Cymru's Professor Phil Williams AM, has carried out research estimating that an additional £62 million a year will be needed to cover the increased level of European grants allocated to Wales in the next few years.
The Secretary of State obviously appreciates the importance of the issue. I urge him to lobby his colleagues along the lines that I have suggested and ask him to bear in mind the special needs involved in the programme. I know that he is aware of them; I am merely reminding him. Will he make objective 1 a real success throughout Wales?
4.31 pm
Mr. Martin Caton: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his excellent speech. He clearly has a valuable role to play in the House in future. I felt proud as I listened to him because he is from Gowerton stock in my constituency. He may be Ogmore man today, but he was Gower boy. That is why I know that he will be especially interested in the subject that I shall talk about in the few minutes that I have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cockles."] Correct.
900
Tomorrow is St. David's day, and many restaurants, hotels and pubs in the Swansea area will offer specifically Welsh menus—many of them very imaginative and extremely mouth-watering, and some of them involving Welsh cockles. Unfortunately, however, they will not be local Penclawdd cockles, because as I said at Welsh questions yesterday, since last July the Burry inlet cockle shellfishery has in effect been closed.
I guess that if one asked most people who live in Swansea and the surrounding area, or even tourists who have visited it, to list the things that they associate with Gower, cockles would be fairly near the top of most of those lists. Many, when that came to mind, would not think of a small bivalve mollusc. They would have a mental picture from before the war of hardy cockle women from Penclawdd and other north Gower villages, swathed in layers of shawls, leading their ponies and carts on to the estuary at low tide, taking out their wooden rakes and gathering the finest cockles in the world for sale in local markets, perhaps for consumption with local laverbread and bacon for breakfast.
That mental picture, although from a bygone age, is not so very different from what one would have seen if one had gone out to watch the cockle gatherers in the Burry inlet before last July. Certainly, the pony and cart would have been replaced with a Land Rover, some of the women would have been replaced with menfolk and almost all the shawls would have been replaced by more suitable outdoor gear, but the actual gathering of the cockles would have been exactly the same—using a wooden rake and a great deal of back-breaking work.
The shellfishery has a record of environmental and economic sustainability that is probably unparalleled anywhere else around the coast. In recent years, that sustainability has been maintained by regulation through the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, so that only a limited number of licensed gatherers can collect cockles in the Burry inlet and the amount that each of them can take is limited, as is the size of the cockles taken. That system ensured that cockles could be gathered in the Burry inlet throughout the year, except when short-term prohibition orders applied as a result of pollution spills or other health hazards. That is largely because it has not, like other shellfisheries, started to use heavy equipment from boats or large tractor rakes, but has stuck with the hard work of the hand rake.
Until last July, the operation had provided a good living for more than 40 families in north Gower. It had led to the development of a sizeable co-operative cockle and laverbread factory and other family processing units in the Penclawdd area, provided a central focus for Swansea's excellent market and given birth to our regular cockle festival in the city. The Burry inlet cockle beds do not provide a living only to some of my constituents. There are also cockle gatherers on the other side of the estuary, in Llanelli and Carmarthenshire. I know that hon. Members from those constituencies share my support for the industry and my concern for its future.
Sadly, what many of us thought of as this most environmentally friendly and sustainable of industries, applauded by conservation groups throughout Wales and beyond, has been closed down for nearly eight months. Since last July, both sides of the Burry inlet have continued to return positive results for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, which, as its name suggests, is a poisoning caused by the consumption of infected shellfish that

901
induces diarrhoea and various other nasty symptoms. To protect public health, the Food Standards Agency and the local authorities therefore imposed temporary prohibition orders to stop cockle gathering.
That has left the cockle gatherers' families in a desperate situation. They have lost their only or main source of income for two thirds of a year. Their savings have been eaten up and many have been forced to extend their overdrafts or to borrow from other sources. What is worse, they have no idea when they will be able pursue their livelihoods again. That depressing uncertainty has grown week after week. At first, everyone from gatherers to environmental scientists expected the problem to disappear, because in the past DSP has come and gone in a matter of weeks in shellfisheries around the coast. That led to a growing awareness that something was different and more virulent about this outbreak than previous outbreaks in the area and around the coast of Britain.
Then, about a month ago—seven months after the fishery was first closed—we learned that the DSP positive test results in the Burry inlet are not due to what the Food Standards Agency calls "classic" DSP toxins. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science at Weymouth has found that the toxicity of the affected cockles from the Burry inlet is more acute than normal. Even at this stage, we know little about what is causing these positive results. We know that heat treatment does not kill it, as it does some bugs responsible for other shellfish-induced illness. Work is going on at CEFAS and other institutions. Similar results have been shown in other locations such as the Wash and the Thames estuary. There is also evidence from Ireland and Canada of similar phenomena. As we are so far away from identifying the cause, we are even further away from identifying the factors that have allowed it to develop, be they pollutants or other environmental changes in the estuary.
The distress is greatest for the cockle gatherers, especially for those with no other source of income, but it is not confined to them. Others are suffering, albeit to a lesser extent—for example, those involved in processing who have to pay the extra costs of transporting cockles from other parts of the UK and abroad, and people who sell cockles, especially in the markets, who no longer have a local product and can see the concern about the safety of cockle consumption putting off their customers. Cockle gatherers in south-west Wales who do not work the licensed Burry inlet have had their shellfisheries around the coast, at places such as Laugharne and Ferryside, threatened with overfishing by the displaced gatherers and then closed down to protect stocks.
So what needs to be done and who should be doing it? First, a compensation scheme should be set up for cockle gatherers unable to gather their product in the inlet. There is a strong case for such a scheme. These families have seen farmers whose livelihoods were undermined by foot and mouth disease receiving Government compensation and help being provided to affected parts of the tourist industry. That is quite right. However, these people have not just had their livelihoods undermined—they have had the rug pulled from under them and have so far received no help. Indeed, for most of the eight months they have had to keep paying their licences although they cannot gather their cockles.
902
When I make that case contrasting the treatment of cockle gatherers with that of farmers, I am accused of comparing chalk with cheese. People argue that cockling, as a form of fishing, is hunter-gathering, and that if stocks run out in one place hunter-gatherers move on to another location. That is probably true around most of the coast. In places such as the Wash, the Thames estuary and the Scottish coast, cockle gatherers do exactly that. If they get a prohibition order they simply move their activities outside its boundaries. That is not an option for the cocklers at the Burry inlet shellfishery, who are tied to their estuary. They are not really hunter-gatherers, but husbander-gatherers, and hence much more similar to farmers and without, in the main, the option of looking to new cocklebeds.
So: who should provide the cocklers with support? The question of how to do that is complicated. When my colleagues and I ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we are told that this is entirely a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. When I ask the National Assembly, it explains that, while responsibility for the inshore fishery has been devolved, it has no powers to compensate cockle gatherers.
When I ask why the Assembly cannot use the wide power in section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which states that the Assembly
"may do anything…which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any of its functions",
it is pointed out that the closure of the fishery is not an exercise of one of the Assembly's functions. It is the action of the local authorities on behalf of the Food Standards Agency. Therefore, the Assembly is, apparently, unable to pay any sort of compensation.
A Treasury scheme exists for compensation when a pest or disease has affected a fishery. Apparently, however, diarrhetic shellfish poisoning does not count as a pest because it results from the shellfish ingesting toxins present in the microscopic algae on which they feed. I do not know why the definition of "pest" has to be drawn so tightly as to rule this problem out. We either need to widen the definition or expand section 40 of the Government of Wales Act to allow the Assembly to provide support. Alternatively, we need to find a way of operating through food safety laws to provide compensation to these people, either through UK Government agencies or the National Assembly. Somehow, we should find a way to provide support to these families from the public purse. That is getting pretty urgent for some of the families involved.
It is even more urgent, now, that we get on with sorting the estuary out, identifying the problem and its causes and taking the necessary remedial action to ensure that the estuary environment can once again support a sustainable cockle industry. For the Loughor estuary to be rescued, I believe that we are going to need more geographically specific research that looks not only at the microbiology but at the wider ecosystem in the estuary.
As well as the problem caused by algae toxins, other problems have been identified in the inlet: eutrophication caused by excess nitrates; silting up and encroachment; and an increasingly anaerobic environment. All these have been seen in parts of the inlet and all—as well as the DSP problem—will affect the quantity and quality of collectable cockles.
We are fortunate that Swansea university has the expertise to carry out the sort of research that needs to be done. Dr. Kevin Flynn at the university is an expert in the

903
field of algae biotoxins and is prepared to get such a research project under way. However, that research needs to get going as quickly as possible. The phytoplankton that will be a central part of the investigation starts growing in spring. Research should begin as soon as possible if valuable information is not to be lost for another year. I congratulate both Carmarthenshire and Swansea on having put in money to begin that research, but I hope that the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency will see the sense in diverting some of their research budgets to this project.
Too often in the history of south Wales, people have been expected to trade off environmental quality in exchange for jobs. This is a case in which improving the environment and saving jobs—even creating new ones—go hand in hand. To do this in time will take political will at every level of government.
4.43 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his speedy race through the fascinating subject of cockles in Gower. I look forward with some enthusiasm to further discussions on that in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I also join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his maiden speech. Perhaps unlike other Members who have to delve a long way back into their memory to remember what that experience is like, as a new boy I did it only about eight months ago. It involved a peculiar mix of terror and excitement which slowly eased away, leaving me with the realisation that I had to sit here for another half an hour or so to be polite. I therefore understand the hon. Gentleman's situation. I also congratulate him on getting Kylie Minogue and J. J. Williams into the same sentence; that is quite a remarkable achievement in a maiden speech. So—congratulations all round.
I want to focus on an issue about which I feel strongly, namely the condition of and prospects for the Welsh economy. Doing business in Wales has much to commend it. It is often said that the sign of a good economy is a high number of overseas investors prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Inward investment is a good example of how an economy is doing. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Welsh Development Agency was tremendously successful. We saw about £13 billion worth of inward investment during that period, and some 200,000 jobs were either secured or created.
One of the most interesting aspects of the structural reform of the Welsh economy in that period was illustrated by the fact that four of the world's six largest and most successful electronics manufacturers were based in Wales. That was a real vote of confidence in the Welsh economy in that period.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers in Wales, and to their often excellent record of loyalty and commitment. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the many small business men and women who form the heart of any economy and, particularly, form the heart of the Welsh economy. It is often true to say that politicians do not take the opportunity often enough to say thank you. I would like to say thank you to the thousands—indeed, millions—of small business men and women across the United Kingdom, and particularly those
904
in Wales. They are the ones who create the wealth; they create jobs for other people, and have the confidence to provide us with the services on which we rely. I am sure that all hon. Members share my gratitude for the hard work and dedication of small business men and women across Wales.
It is with regret, therefore, that I have to say that the confidence of those business men and women in Wales is at an all-time low. It is certainly much lower than the confidence of many businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are all aware that manufacturing has been in recession for a whole year. We have seen 9,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Wales in that time. The trade deficit for the United Kingdom as a whole is also at a record level.
The Trades Union Congress said today that it did not foresee the recovery that has been heralded by some Ministers taking place this year in Wales. It does not foresee the recovery taking place in manufacturing until 2003. That means that we face two consecutive years of recession. The recession in manufacturing will have a devastating effect on the businesses involved and on the communities that support them.
I hope that the TUC is wrong in this instance, and that things will recover more quickly. However, its view is also shared by many entrepreneurs in Wales. I refer to a recent report published by Barclays on business start-ups. These start-ups are an important indicator, because they show the confidence that people have in the future of an economy, locally or nationally. The figures for the last year show a noticeable fall in the number of business start-ups planned in Wales. That is not unusual in a recessionary period.
The fall, however, is much greater in Wales than it is in the neighbouring English regions. In the west midlands, the fall in business start-ups in the last year is 6 per cent., but in Wales—right next door—the figure is not 6 per cent. or 12 per cent. but 19 per cent. That represents a fall of nearly one fifth in the number of business start-ups in Wales in the last year. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will understand this point particularly. In a region such as the west midlands, including the delightful county of Shropshire, the fall of 6 per cent. was not good, but it was certainly not devastating. Just across the border in Powys, however, there has been a fall of 19 per cent. That is worrying because it bodes ill for the Welsh economy and suggests the danger of a greater gap between the Welsh and English economies, which would be in no one's interest.
What is the problem, and what is the difference in Wales? I have talked to business men and women and their representatives, including the Cardiff chamber of commerce and the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses. They have identified a number of factors, and I shall raise two of them.
The first relates to the burden of regulation and the administrative costs of the regulations that fall on small businesses in Wales. Last year, the extraordinary number of 4,672 new regulations were introduced, which is a record since regulations have been counted. That is not my figure: it comes from the House of Commons. That comes on top of the £15 billion costs of red tape that the British Chambers of Commerce has identified from Labour's first four years in government. Unfortunately, there is little sign that the pace or scope of regulation is likely to diminish.

905
A number of small business men and women have told me that they hope there will be change and a realisation by the Government that the burden on small businesses is disproportionate. I spoke to them today, and as regards the figure of 4,672 new regulations they have said to themselves, "We can kiss that money goodbye. The chances of those figures falling is very small."
The reality is that the average small business in Wales spends up to 31 hours each month complying with or administering Government regulations. That is the equivalent of four working days a month—another working day a week—merely to ensure that the business is complying with and administering the regulations. Is it any wonder that the productivity of businesses in Wales, or in the United Kingdom as a whole, is collapsing? The sad fact is that four years ago we were the ninth most competitive nation in the world, but we are now the 19th, and the danger is that Wales and the UK as a whole will fall further.
The second factor that businesses have mentioned to me and that has been highlighted in a number of surveys is the lack of confidence that Welsh businesses have in local and national authorities. Individual business owners have expressed to me their frustration in dealings with local councils and agencies from the Assembly or from Whitehall—indeed, in having to deal with all three when the different levels do not communicate effectively with one another. That has been borne out most recently by a comprehensive survey entitled "Barriers to Growth and Survival", published by the Welsh Federation of Small Businesses.
I shall pick up on a couple of brief points made in that survey which merit consideration. Across the United Kingdom, 33 per cent. of small firms said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with Government-funded business advice, but in Wales the figure was 51 per cent.—over half. People singled out the quality of business advisers, the co-ordination of services, grant funding, loan funding and training grants. If local authorities think that they escape criticism, I have bad news for them. Local support for small businesses also attracted criticism, with almost three quarters of firms in Wales saying that they were dissatisfied with their local authority as a whole. Moreover, 60 per cent. of them were fed up with local economic development departments—I hope that the new Assembly Minister dealing with that aspect will take note of that if he has time—and 40 per cent. were unhappy with the way in which local planning applications are carried out. That is a sad indictment of how the public sector is perceived by one of the crucial communities that it exists to serve. It clearly shows a breakdown in the confidence of those businesses in many of their public authorities, and a breakdown of communications and trust.
People may wonder why things have got to this stage. I shall give a simple example. As a chartered surveyor, I am relatively familiar with this issue, although not an in-depth expert, so I look forward to being corrected by Labour Members. As I understand the current situation—Labour Members will be happy to remind me of this—businesses in my English constituency will be able to veto any proposal from a local authority to create a supplementary or additional business rate, whereas businesses in the Welsh constituencies of Labour and
906
other Members will not have that veto and their voice will not count in the same way. That is wrong, because it discriminates against Welsh businesses, and it makes many of them second-class citizens.
Some people may say—sadly, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is not present to say it, but I am sure he would if he were here—that with devolution there will be differences of opinion and different approaches. That may well be, but from the perspective of the small business man or woman, it puts them and their business at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their English neighbours. That is probably the worst possible signal about the nature of the devolution settlement that we could give the engine of the Welsh economy, and it is one of the saddest aspects of how devolution has been allowed to spin out.
In my lifetime, the Welsh economy has undergone a radical transformation. That is in no small measure due to the hard work and the willingness to change of the people of Wales. Small business owners and managers want and need better business support. They want less regulation, and resent the complex political and bureaucratic hurdles that they have to tackle. Understandably, they resent the fact that they are now required every month to spend the equivalent of four working days simply complying with Government red tape.
I believe that small businesses in Wales deserve better, not just because they create local wealth and local jobs, important though they are, but because entrepreneurs embody the essential ingredient of a decent society. No matter who a person is—whatever his background, class, colour or creed—if he has the ability, skills and will to work, he can be his own boss and make his own way in the world. That is a vital message of hope for all, in whatever part of Wales. That is why small businesses matter in Wales, and why I believe that they deserve our full support.
4.57 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, not least because St. David's day is my birthday, which is good for a Labour politician in Wales, but also because about five weeks ago I thought for a split second that I would not be able to speak ever again, when someone in another car in Cardiff decided to share my side of the road for a few seconds, and lost. I want to say publicly how well the emergency services of Cardiff and south Wales dealt with the accident, especially the accident and emergency department. Despite the doom and gloom that we hear from Conservative Members, A and E did a magnificent job for me and for the poor occupants of the other vehicle. The doom and gloom that we keep hearing about is not relevant. The police, the fire brigade, the ambulance service and the A and E people did a magnificent job for everyone involved.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who made a magnificent speech. The constituency problems he described are similar to those I experience: both constituencies are landlocked, and in both cases the ending of a mining tradition has left a legacy of poverty and deprivation. I think we are all here to try to put that right, and I wish my hon. Friend luck.

907
I want to raise two issues of specific interest to north-east Wales, and relating directly to Wrexham. I represent roughly half that area, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is present, may wish to speak later and to raise the same issues.
My first point relates to city status for Wrexham. As Members will know, throughout Wales Wrexham is considered to be the premier industrial, commercial shopping and administrative centre of north Wales. The area's achievements over the past decade are worthy of the recognition and honour that city status would confer on every resident, business, organisation and group that has helped it to create its new positive future.
Besides being the largest town in north Wales, Wrexham is now truly the regional centre of the north. South Wales has two urban civic cities, Cardiff and Swansea, but there is no northern equivalent. City status for Wrexham would help to correct a long-overdue imbalance in Wales.
Economically, Wrexham's fortunes have undergone a transformation in recent years, by any measure. City status would constitute an acknowledgement of a sustained period of achievement in the town's regeneration. That achievement is due to the drive and purpose of its people, and to partnerships developed with private and public bodies. For example, on average one new company is established each week in the Wrexham area. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) should note that: although we heard some doom and gloom from him, there are good stories to tell, especially in areas such as Wrexham.
Chris Ruane: I am glad that my hon. Friend is seeking to correct the imbalance created by the Conservatives. Last year in my county of Denbighshire, 44 new companies were started in Ruthin and 24 in Rhyl, with the help of the council and other agencies. That is a marvellous example of the expansion of the small and medium-sized enterprise base in Wales.
Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear such news of another centre in north Wales. It may not be quite as big and prosperous as Wrexham, but I know that with the help of its Member of Parliament it will improve in the near future.
Development opportunities in Wrexham's town centre are eagerly sought, which reflects the confidence and vitality of the town and the surrounding area. The Henley centre for forecasting described Wrexham as one of the top 20 areas in Britain with above-average potential for economic activity during the 1990s. It has more than fulfilled its expectations, and continues to move from strength to strength.
So far the campaign for city status has proved a great success, and we are delighted with the Wales-wide support that we have received for our bid. To date, 56 per cent. of Members in Wales—excluding those on the Government payroll—have supported the granting of city status in this jubilee year. To that can be added the support of all five Members of the European Parliament representing Wales, 75 per cent. of Welsh local authorities and 61 per cent. of Members of the National Assembly. Given the expressions of support from thousands of people in all walks of life—those working in television, sport, business and tourism, health professionals and
908
religious leaders—we begin to see a huge momentum gathering in favour of a just reward for Wrexham and, indeed, north Wales.
City status would enable Wrexham to be seen as a location for quality and opportunity, not just locally and regionally but internationally. It would allow the town to compete in the global economy, and it would help the area to attract more new investment and to build on its strengthening economic base by bringing in high-quality jobs. The area would be enriched, to the general benefit of the people. I urge the Secretary of State, as he considers which Welsh town to recommend for city status in the coming weeks, to reflect not just on what such status would deliver for the people of Wrexham but, more important, on what it would deliver for Wales as a whole. It is time to redress the imbalance between north Wales and south Wales.
The second issue I want to raise concerning Wrexham is not unrelated. It involves the future of the North East Wales institute of higher education, and its ambition to achieve university status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met its principal, Professor Mike Scott, to discuss the prospects of that.
I endorse NEWI's ambition. Let me say at the outset that there remains an important role for the more traditional so-called supply-led universities, such as Cardiff and Bangor, in higher education in the wider national Welsh context. I believe, however, that there is also a real need for a new type of university in north Wales to meet the needs of local people, and I sincerely believe that NEWI can serve that purpose. It has the potential to work in partnership and alliance not just with the supply-led colleges in the university of Wales, but with its partners in the further education sector and in business, commerce, the arts and sport.
NEWI has a progressive and innovative vision that can be realised in its development as an independent entity with university status. Wrexham and north-east Wales need a new, high-quality university, and NEWI can fill that role with ease. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about its ambition at the earliest opportunity.
Let me now deal with a matter that has concerned me for some time. It has come back into focus only recently, as a result of a campaign with which I have been involved in my constituency. My concern relates to the serious matter of balance in news coverage and current affairs programmes broadcast on the Welsh-language channel SpedwarC, or S4C. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware of those concerns, as I have copied to him recent correspondence that I have sent to the chair of S4C, Elan Closs Stephens.
I have genuine worries about the existence of a policy among S4C news and current affairs producers and editors effectively to exclude non-Welsh speaking MPs and Assembly members from coverage on their various programmes. Hon. Members may know of the campaign that I have fought to save Britain's oldest brand of lager, Wrexham Lager. It has received considerable coverage in recent weeks on independent networks and on BBC regional television and radio. As a natural consequence, the story also attracted much interest from producers and editors making news and current affairs programmes for S4C.
However, although my office received several calls from S4C production teams, my staff were asked only to provide background information for the story and to

909
suggest only Welsh speakers for interview on camera about the story. I became concerned that there was a possibility that S4C was operating a policy of linguistic apartheid when reaching editorial decisions. I certainly hope that such decisions are not based on a politician's ability to speak fluent Welsh, but all the indications are that that, sadly, may be the case at S4C. What other hon. Friends have told me reinforces that view.
As a result of my fears, I recently made some very interesting inquiries of TG4, the Irish-language national television channel of the Republic of Ireland. TG4 mirrors the function and the role of S4C in the Republic by providing a daily Irish-language programme schedule.
I was amazed to discover that non-Irish speaking politicians are not excluded from any news programmes on the basis that they cannot speak Irish. Indeed, in such circumstances, TG4 simply subtitles any interview or contribution. The only criterion for the broadcast of a news item is newsworthiness.
As an interesting aside, thanks to the endeavours of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his previous job as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, TG4 is now broadcast in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend's crucial and important part in securing peace through the Good Friday agreement now means that TG4 is broadcast for Irish speakers across the border in Northern Ireland. I am sure, therefore, that he is all too familiar with what I am describing.
Sadly, in Wales newsworthiness and balance do not seem to be taken into account by S4C producers and editors when they make editorial decisions. Language seems to be the overriding and determining factor in deciding the news agenda. That cannot be a healthy way to present news and factual programming, as it limits and restricts opinion. In any case, it does not reflect the Welsh nation as a whole.
S4C claims that it does as much as possible to help learners of the Welsh language. I know from my own experience of trying to learn Welsh and Spanish that the best way for television to help language learners is through the use of subtitles. In this case, subtitles should be both Welsh-English and English-Welsh.
It is sad that on this day—the eve of St. David's Day, and of my birthday—S4C is leaving itself wide open to accusations of imbalance in news reporting. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity with the chair of the channel, and to establish once and for all that S4C serves the entire Welsh nation, irrespective of linguistic competency. I have supported S4C in the past as a valuable asset in Welsh life. A change in news and current affairs policy such as I have described would reinforce my support.
In conclusion, I should briefly like to deal with the work in this House of the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I have the privilege to be the Chairman. We recently examined the shameful decision of the Children's Society to withdraw from Wales, a decision that angered many people in Wales. The Committee was not impressed by the society's reasons for pulling out of Wales, and the subsequent report emphasised that the society's action must not be seen as a green light for other charities to follow suit.
910
The House should know that our inquiry exposed some major flaws in the decision-making process adopted by the Children's Society. The Committee concluded that the adoption of the recent recommended code of practice by the voluntary sector in Wales could prevent such mistakes in the future.
Currently, the Committee is looking at the important issue of objective 1 funding for Wales, which was mentioned earlier. We are also receiving evidence on broadband internet provision. The Committee will be happy to hear evidence from anyone on those issues, and on the question of the operation of the legislative process in Wales, and its potential, following devolution.
I assure the House that relations and co-operation between the Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly are very constructive indeed. That is a testament to the success and the drive of the devolutionary policies of this Government. This House can be satisfied that self-government for Wales and the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff go from strength to strength. The message is clear—devolution is working for Wales.
5.9 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which falls as close as possible to St. David's day.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on achieving another birthday and surviving the terrible car accident in which he was involved, thus sparing us the unedifying spectacle of the competition to see who would succeed him as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his maiden speech, which was very good. I did not have the opportunity to get to know his predecessor, Sir Ray Powell, very well, because of the short time that I have been in the House, but I got to know the hon. Gentleman in the general election, in which he fought a vigorous campaign—fortunately, though, not vigorous enough to get the result that he wanted.
I will aspire to reach the high standard set for politicians by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). No doubt what I say will be reported back to him and judged accordingly.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) for publicising the Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets and the great effect that they have throughout the nation because of their positive content.
In this debate, we have talked about the economy, manufacturing, the service sector, tourism, agriculture and even shellfish gatherers, so we have had a fairly comprehensive tour. We have also considered how we are functioning as a society and how we are dealing with health, education and transport. The one aspect that we have missed out—although it was touched on by the hon. Member for Ogmore in his description of his constituency—is the environment.
The environment is one of our greatest assets and we must protect it at all costs. Much is written and spoken about sustainability, yet it is a little-understood concept and certainly not one that has captured the imagination of the general public. It is not used by planning authorities, for instance, to rank development proposals in order of

911
acceptability, and developments are taking place in Wales under the cloak of sustainability, environmental targets and international obligations that are profoundly and demonstrably unsustainable.
Unfortunately, Wales has had a history of being robbed and raped of its assets and of having its environment degraded and impoverished. One of the first examples was the desecration and deforestation of the hills of south and mid-Wales to produce charcoal to feed the furnaces of the early iron foundries. Those hills have never recovered their diversity—biologically, they will never recover. However, the process led to the wide, open and challenging landscapes that are so valued by the people who live there and by the visitors who bring money into the local economy.
The second great exploitation in south Wales took place in the name of coal, to fuel the iron and steel industries and to be exported as well as being used domestically. The coal rush brought very modest returns for the people who live in the area, and great social deprivation. The huge returns went to the coal owners. Because there were no environmental controls, the mining utterly destroyed some of the south Wales valleys, which were a landscape every bit as beautiful as mid-Wales, and probably more diverse in its wildlife.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned the reclamation work being done by the Welsh Development Agency. I commend that. It has made a great impression and there has been a real greening of the south Wales valleys, but the hand of man does not compare with that of nature: man-made landscapes and environments lack the fascination of the real thing, which is what attracts and will continue to attract visitors. There are lessons to be learned: let us not destroy the very jewel of the Welsh crown that sits so well with the other jewels of culture, language and community.
Recently, the uplands of Wales have become the target of developers who use the words "renewable" and "sustainable" to cloak and cover a unique landscape with industrial structures, such as wind farms. Friends visiting me say, "Don't ever take that landscape for granted. Fight for its survival." A sense of wilderness is very hard to find today in urbanised Britain, but finding it is enormously spiritually uplifting for those whose lives have become humdrum and stressful. Such experiences are more than recreational; they are re-creational and truly renewing. They re-create people's spirit.
We should not be misled: when landscapes are lost to industrialisation, they are lost for many generations and probably for ever. Reclamation has always taken a very long time. In an important debate in the other place, noble Lords, including the Lord Bishop of Hereford, drew attention to the Cefn Croes wind farm development and the Department of Trade and Industry's decision to allow it to proceed without public inquiry. I shall not dwell on that too much, except to say—
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate, but I have just returned from Germany, where I was looking at renewable development. Given that the hon. Gentleman disapproves of wind farms, I hope he will explain his party's position on nuclear power. If we do not adopt one or the other, we may as well throw away any commitment to Kyoto.
Mr. Williams: I do not agree that the choice is between wind power or nuclear energy. The Liberal Democrat
912
party and I favour offshore wind farms, rather than the establishment of wind farms in Wales's wild and special places.
As I said, the debate in the other place made mention of the Cefn Croes wind farm development, about which there is huge disquiet in the whole of Wales. Ceredigion's local planning authority approved the application in a meeting lasting less than half an hour, even though the officer's report, which ran to more than 100 pages, recommended refusing the application. That recommendation was based on, among other factors, the view of the Countryside Council for Wales that wind farms are inappropriate in that location. Here we enter a circle of confusion. The CCW thought that it was not empowered to request an inquiry, and the Assembly thought it could not request one if its adviser, the CCW, had not done so.
The application then went straight from Ceredigion county council to the desk of a Minister in the DTI, without touching any other organisation in Wales. That Minister then took his decision without visiting the site; he merely consulted what we in Wales call snaps, or, in more technical language, photomontages. I wonder whether the Wales Office was involved in that process, and whether the Minister or the Secretary of State could give a personal view on it.
My main concern is the Camddwr trust's proposal to build 165 turbines, 400 ft high, on the Ceredigion-Powys border. One third of them would be built in my constituency above Abergwesyn, on land that is of national park quality but has never been designated as such. That application must not be fast-tracked in any way, but scrutinised in detail. In any event, a public inquiry must be held, involving an entirely independent inspector who is well versed in the impact of such developments on dramatic landscapes.
I am particularly concerned by a press statement by the Minister for Industry and Energy about future planning applications. On announcing the Cefn Croes application, he said:
"new rules which will relocate renewable energy projects…have been proposed under the non fossil fuel obligation but have failed to obtain planning permission".
We are not quite sure what that means, but it fills us with horror. Perhaps there is some fast-tracking system for so-called sustainable or non-fossil fuel obligation developments. Once again, Wales is being exploited by a large organisation that is making huge profits from non-fossil fuel obligation subsidies. We must put our environment before financial exploitation.
5.19 pm
Julie Morgan: I am grateful that I caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this important debate on issues connected with Wales. I am pleased to have been in my place when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made his maiden speech. He reiterated the principles that guide this party, so it was a tremendous pleasure to listen to him today.
I am also pleased to be here on the day that the Leader of the House announced a timetable that will, I am sure, eventually lead to the end of hunting with hounds. That is an important issue in Wales and I have had more letters on that than on any other issue since becoming an MP.

913
The letters have come from all sections of the population, but especially from young people. Recently, I have had letters from people who cannot understand why, when democratically elected Members of Parliament have indicated their clear will to ban hunting on several occasions, it has not yet happened. A ban to end hunting might help to restore the faith in democracy that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned. Such policies will help to convince the public that we do what we say we are going to do. I hope that we will not see a fudge on the issue of hunting. If this House votes in favour of a ban and the other place votes against, the Parliament Act should be used.
I shall address most of my remarks to the subject of crime and the Home Office's policies in Wales on prisons and on combating domestic violence. I strongly support the Home Secretary's aim, which he stated to prison governors recently, to reduce the number of people in prison and increase community sentencing, including perhaps weekend prisons and other ways in which prisoners can maintain their contacts in the community while serving their sentences.
I have long taken an interest in the position of women in prison. Because of the lack of a women's prison in Wales, Welsh women have had to serve their sentences in English prisons, which causes huge problems for their families and children. United Kingdom figures show that half of the children of Welsh women in prison are taken into care. An analysis of the 169 Welsh women in prison on 30 November 2001 showed that the majority were there for non-violent offences. Many of the Welsh women who are in prison today should not be there.
I fully support the proposals by the Prison Reform Trust for a network of local facilities to help to rehabilitate offenders. Women are treated differently from men by the criminal justice system. Those facilities should be made available, because women from Wales, and their families, would benefit from them.
The general population of prisoners in Wales, like that in the rest of the UK, has risen rapidly. An answer to a written question that I received yesterday reveals that the prison population in the Welsh prisons—Cardiff, Swansea, Parc and Usk, including Prescoed—rose from 1,437 to 2,191 between 1997 and 2002. That is an increase of nearly 50 per cent. In reasons for prison sentences, the biggest rise has been in drug offences. Some 124 men were held for drug offences in 1997 compared with 280 in 2002—another huge increase. The next biggest rise was for burglary—from 237 to 332. I do not have a deeper analysis of the drug offences, but it is difficult to obtain help for drug addiction in prison. We all know that, despite the best efforts of the prison officers drugs are still widely available in prisons.
With a rapidly escalating prison population we must find alternatives to prison. I support the tagging schemes that allow early release and that have been almost universally successful. I look forward to more community sentencing. Those who are a danger to the public must be kept in prison, but many of those who are not a risk could serve their sentences more effectively in the community. It is also important to ask how successful prison is and how good it is at preventing reoffending. We all know
914
that its record is poor. Reconviction rates are very high after a prison sentence, and I believe that the entire subject must be reviewed.
Another move by the Home Secretary that I strongly welcome is the ending of the policy of holding asylum seekers in jail. Very many asylum seekers have passed through Cardiff prison and I applaud the Home Secretary's decision, which means that there are now no asylum seekers there.
I previously visited asylum seekers in Cardiff prison, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and followed up the visit with a debate in Westminster Hall. Asylum seekers were unsuitably housed, on a top landing in an old, unmodernised section of the prison. That is no criticism of prison officers, who were placed in a very difficult situation and had to deal with it as best they could. For people who have committed no crime it was an entirely wrong policy, which I am pleased that the Home Secretary has ended so soon after entering his post. I was also encouraged by the report in the press this week that many of the old Victorian-style prisons will be replaced by more modern ones, which could affect us in Wales.
I shall now discuss violent crime against women in the home. In Welsh questions yesterday I raised the issue of future funding for the women's safety unit in Cardiff. The unit is one of several projects in Wales that are funded by the Home Office for a 12-month period as part of its crime reduction programme, and I was very pleased to hear that a Wales Office Minister would be visiting it soon. The unit, which was very recently launched in Cardiff, is a one-stop shop dealing with criminal justice, housing, finance and the emotional fall-out from domestic violence and rape, particularly in the 70 per cent. of rape cases in which the perpetrator is known to the victim.
The women's safety unit aims to provide advocacy for victims and their children and to reduce the risk of future harm. In the first 11 weeks of its operation, it has dealt with 140 women and 209 children. It is important that we do not forget the effects of domestic violence on children. There are some powerful and evocative images on posters, showing children cowering on the stairs or hiding behind doors when domestic violence is occurring in the home. We have not spoken much about children in today's debate, but obviously they should be at the heart of all our policies. Research has shown a strong link between domestic violence and child abuse, and children are absolutely key in all policies to do with domestic violence.
The women's safety unit has been able to change the structures of the criminal justice system in Cardiff so that cases can be quickly and appropriately dealt with. In Cardiff there is a named prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service. There is a domestic violence pre-trial review court staffed by a clerk who, along with all the Cardiff magistrates, has received training from the women's safety unit in how to deal with domestic abuse. It is absolutely essential that people who are dealing with that type of case receive the training to enable them to understand the implications. The time that it has taken for such cases to be heard has been halved in Cardiff, which means that there is less time for the victim to withdraw because of fear or intimidation.
The major problems to be tackled by the unit are the under-reporting of violence in the home and the fact that very many of those women who do report violence drop

915
out before the case reaches court. In Cardiff in one week last October there were 52 call-outs to incidents of domestic violence. Those resulted in six arrests, and four people being charged. Thus, following 52 incidents, only four people were charged.
I applaud the Government for putting domestic violence high on their agenda. Projects such as those that we have in Cardiff pave the way for a complete change in attitude and approach to this very damaging situation. The Government have made a tremendous start on the projects that they have set up. There are several throughout Wales, but the funding for those projects is only for 12 months. I want to reiterate very strongly that it is impossible to tackle an issue of such major importance with 12-month funding. I ask the Minister again to use all the power he has to persuade the Home Secretary to increase the funding for these projects.
5.29 pm
Adam Price: I am glad that the hon. and new Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is back in his place. As a fellow socialist parliamentarian and a fellow west Walian, may I add my words of warm congratulation on an excellent maiden speech? The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) is not here, but he will know that the best intellectuals in the Labour movement have always come from west Wales. I am glad to see that that civilising missionary spirit is carried forth, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will endeavour to raise the consciousness of the Ogmore constituency Labour party for many years to come.
This is my maidenesque appearance in a Welsh day debate, which is an interesting if rather peculiar institution in some ways—a bit like this entire Parliament. The first Welsh affairs debate took place in 1944, and such debates became an annual event two years later, under a Labour Government. That was something of a sop at the time, although I do not wish to be in any way ungrateful for the opportunity that the debate gives us to discuss Wales affairs. Obviously, we are very grateful for every opportunity to raise issues of importance to Wales. The idea of having a Welsh day is slightly redolent of tokenism. Of course, every day needs to be a Welsh day, and we look forward to a time when we have a Welsh Parliament—obviously with family-friendly hours—when every day will indeed be a Welsh day.
One of Parliament's interesting conventions is that we are not allowed to see outside the Chamber, but it is fair to say that perhaps the media interest at United Kingdom level in this Welsh affairs debate may be rather less than we might have hoped.
Mr. Llwyd: It is limited.
Adam Price: Possibly, yes. In a sense, Welsh politics and affairs have been pushed to the periphery of interest by successive Governments. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would try to resist that kind of metropolitan centralism. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) if he has something of relevance or interest to say. I am only 60 seconds into my speech, and I shall try to get on to the matters of interest.
Of course, it is true to say that, during the past month, a Welsh story, broken by the Welsh media and by my party, has come to dominate the headlines throughout the
916
United Kingdom. I certainly cannot remember the last time that a story made in Wales has come to dominate the news agenda in that way.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the story dominated the headlines in Ogmore?
Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman is incisive as ever.
The story was originally published by the Western Mail four weeks ago today, and it has rightly been at the forefront of political debate in Wales. On that day, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was involved in an interesting spat on the BBC. It was as poetic as ever, and I remember the phrase "maggots on the corpse". I am not sure what the corpse was—perhaps it was that of the Welsh Labour party, but I thought that that had a little bit of life left in it. I remember the prophetic words, "Adam, if you have any evidence of impropriety, then publish it." Four days later, we found the famous letter on the Romanian website, and I am sure that that will go down in history.
Clearly, there are two stories at the heart of that affair. The first is the set of circumstances surrounding the Government's support for the Sidex deal, and I shall concentrate on that. As the Secretary of State for Wales said, there will be an opportunity for further discussion, especially on the second issue—the cover-up. I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have counted nine fundamentally untrue statements or misleading statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and his official spokesperson as a result of those allegations. Clearly, my party is focused on the significance of that for the Welsh steel industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must choose his words carefully. I am not quite sure what he said a moment ago, but he should not accuse any Member of deliberately misleading the House. If he did, he should withdraw that remark.
Adam Price: I withdraw it if you advise me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister's official spokesperson has made a slightly evasive and confused series of statements, but I shall not detain the House further. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to discuss the matter on Tuesday night. The Secretary of State for Wales should not have to answer on the matter—he is an honest man whose commitment to support the steel industry is of long standing, and he was not consulted on the Sidex deal. In fact, as we know from the Minister for Europe, the only Minister who saw the letter was the Prime Minister. Surely, therefore, the Prime Minister should respond on behalf of the Government on Tuesday night. We look forward to that—at least, we live in hope. The message is, "Don't lose your idealism."
The Sidex deal was never in the national interest of Wales, the UK, or, indeed, the British—I have no problem with the word "British", as the Welsh and Cornish are the original Britons, are they not? The deal was never in the interests of the Welsh steel industry—Graham McKenzie commented to Scotland on Sunday that not only the plant in Romania but the plant in Kazakhstan owned by Mr. Mittal produce flat-rolled steel, which, of course, was produced in Llanwern and Ravenscraig. Therefore, Mittal's plants are competitors. Eastern European steel

917
imports doubled in 1999–2000, and low-cost competition from eastern European steel producers is one of the core problems facing the UK steel industry. It was therefore never in our interests to support the deal.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) pointed out that a deal was going to happen anyway. In a sense, that is true, and many things are happening in the world that will be detrimental to the prospects for Welsh companies in a range of sectors. However, should our Government actively support such developments? Technically, one could argue that the Usinor deal would have been less damaging to our steel industry because, as we have heard, the company employs more people in the UK than Mittal. At least its profits are retained in the European Union, which has indirect benefits, and the main focus of Usinor's steel production—it is formerly state-owned—is in western Europe. It would not therefore be in Usinor's interests to flood western European markets with low-cost steel imports, which is what Mr. Mittal intends to do with his plants in Kazakhstan and Romania.
We should never have supported Mr. Mittal's acquisition of Sidex: quite apart from the Labour party's insensitivity in accepting a donation from a prominent competitor, jobs in the Welsh steel industry will be endangered. Subsequently, we learned about Mr. Mittal's lobbying efforts in the United States. We await President Bush's decision—which he must make by Wednesday under the section 201 inquiry—and we may know it by the time of the debate on Tuesday.
Why was it not possible to seek an undertaking from Mr. Mittal that he would desist from his lobbying efforts in the United States as part of the price of UK support in Romania? As I understand it, no such undertaking was given or sought. It is incumbent on the Government, because of their support for Mr. Mittal both in the letter that clinched the deal and the loan, to use the full power of the British state to introduce a package of measures to support our beleaguered steel industry if President Bush imposes tariffs.
Although the package of measures for steel communities is welcome, in terms of additional central Government money it is less than Mr. Mittal received from the British taxpayer to fund his acquisitions in Romania and Kazakhstan, for which he got £6 million and £14 million respectively. That is depressing.
Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is depressing.
Adam Price: It is depressing for all of us. I would support many aspects of the Labour tradition in Wales. I have always said that I feel like a prodigal son of the Labour party, which I am sure will disown me. I distinguish between the best traditions of the Labour movement in Wales and the way in which the leadership of new Labour have dealt with that issue. I know that privately many Labour Members have sympathy for that sentiment.
The affair has corroded public confidence in politics and we are left with a sobering insight into new Labour and its priorities. Does the Prime Minister care more about his billionaire friends, as the draft letter referred to Mr. Mittal, than the families in the steel communities that
918
have loyally supported the Labour party for more than 100 years? Coming from a mining constituency, I know enough of the failings of old Labour in Wales. I certainly would not whitewash the Labour party's past, but at least there was a moral compass. It did not have an unblemished record, but it was possible to shine up the failings of the Labour party locally against its principles. The problem is that no one is clear about new Labour's principles and it is condemned by its actions. Its inability to realise or to admit what it has done wrong—it committed a grievous injustice to steel communities in south Wales—defines the ideological vacuum at the heart of the new Labour project.
5.43 pm
Chris Ruane: I am pleased to contribute to this St. David's day debate, even though I have to turn my 13-page, 15-minute, well-researched, finely crafted and perfectly delivered speech into a five-minute ramble.
Mr. Ainger: Get on with it.
Chris Ruane: Indeed.
I will confine my comments to town centre renewal. All hon. Members will have empty shops in their constituencies. It is a national issue, but in particular it affects the poorer communities in Wales. First, however, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his fantastic victory in the recent by-election. Well done—llongyfarchiadau.
I intend to draw on my constituency experience and on recent research by the Joseph Rowntree trust, an excellent organisation that has produced a research paper called "Local Shops for Local People". It researched 14 centres around the United Kingdom, including one in Ferndale in Wales, that have reinvigorated, renewed and regenerated their town centres. Lessons can be drawn from that. I urge the Minister to ask his civil servants to study that document. There is a copy available in the Library, which I have used.
I pay tribute to the Labour Government for what they have delivered in our communities and town centres. First, objective 1 funding will allow our local economies to regenerate so that our people are employed, have money in their pockets and can spend it in our town centres.
Secondly, there have been changes in heritage lottery funding since Labour's victory in 1997. Members may recall that, prior to that, £12 million of heritage lottery funding was spent on the Churchill diaries, and £5 million was spent on improving playing fields at Eton. Labour changed the rules so that such money is now used in areas where there is architectural merit and poverty. As a result, Denbigh town centre in my constituency is to benefit from £6 million of heritage lottery funding and Rhyl town centre, which is in Rhyl west, the poorest ward in Wales, is to receive £6 million. So, we have made big inroads into improving our town centres.
The main threat to our town centres, as everyone will realise, has come from out-of-town shopping centres. They are built on cheaper land and because of that benefit from a range of economic factors to the detriment of town centres. The main thrust of my speech is not to turn the clock back 25 years—I shop in those centres on a weekly

919
basis, as I am sure do many hon. Members—but to create a level playing field to ensure that we have the means to regenerate town centres.
The Joseph Rowntree trust research said that we should be creating town centres and not shopping centres in our communities. There is a difference. The town centre should be part of the town and should include the voluntary and community sectors. I opened the Clwyd Coast credit union in my constituency two weeks ago. Because it is located in the centre of Rhyl, its 1,000 members go there weekly and spend money there. The benefit advice shops and citizens advice bureaux are also in Rhyl town centre, which increases the footfall. Not only that: together with the welfare rights unit, their advice brings an additional £4.5 million in benefits into Denbighshire each year. That money is spent in our communities. So it is vital that we create town centres and not shopping centres.
There are other ways in which local and national Government can help our town centres. They can locate employment services in town centres, as they have in Rhyl. Healthy living centres, doctors surgeries and libraries could all be located in town centres.
"Local Shops for Local People" also revealed that for success we need partnerships—not just the traditional partnership of shops and offices in a commercial centre. We are blessed in my community with such business associations in Denbigh, Prestatyn and Rhyl—the three principal towns in my constituency. We need wider partnership and to consider the best examples around the country. The Borough Market renovation, not three miles from this House, enlisted the support of the Churches, residents' associations, the voluntary sector, the community sector and local authorities. We should be aiming for such wide partnership.
Another key factor in reviving our town centres is a safe environment. The Labour Government need to be given credit for creating partnerships to tackle crime and disorder, which bring together the community, local authority and voluntary groups. A month ago in Rhyl, I jointly opened a project to ban the drinking of alcohol on our streets. It aims to convince street drinkers that the areas around the railway station and the piazza are not the places to do their drinking as it deters shoppers.
Labour should be given credit for the closed circuit television that we have introduced in towns and communities all over Wales and for other initiatives such as club safe in Rhyl, which aims to monitor antisocial behaviour in clubs—there are 10,000 clubbers every weekend—and pub watch. It is vital that we create safe communities in which people can shop.
We need to co-ordinate employment, training and education for the work force who will work in our shops. If we regenerate our communities, our local people must benefit. We should target the unemployed and economically inactive in our communities. We should do so carefully, taking a long-term approach to families suffering inter-generational unemployment who have lost confidence. We must reach out to those people, give them training and restore their confidence so that they can go back into the community to be employed in our shops.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into a key factor in many of the 14 regeneration projects around the country, which is the use of simple kiosks. They are low cost and low rent, so for a minimal outlay people can use
920
them to set up their own business: if successful, they can go on to fill our shops; if they fail, no harm is done. Two national chains were first established in my home town of Rhyl—Iceland and Kwik Save. I believe that there are many more Albert Gubays out there in our communities—people who if they were given the opportunity could make great innovations in British retailing.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider three fiscal steps to help town centres, the first of which is to enable flexible rates to be set in depressed communities and town centres. That has been done for the post offices and shops in small rural communities, and I want it to be extended. Secondly, I want the Chancellor to consider re-rating out-of-town shopping centre car parks, and ring-fencing the money for use in revitalising the communities that such centres have done down over the years. Thirdly, last April, the Prime Minister made an announcement about business improvement districts, which would allow local communities to use part of their rates to improve their town centre. I believe that taken together those three fiscal policies would do a great deal to revive our town centres.
5.52 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and wish him many happy returns of the day. I congratulate the new hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on a first-class maiden speech.
Before speaking about violent crime in Wales, I wish to discuss the death of my daffodil. I put it on this morning and was complimented on it throughout the day, but during the speech, of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), my daffodil died. I suspect that it may have been the slightly sanctimonious nature of his speech that did for my daffodil.
Lembit Öpik: The whole point of my remarks was that everyone, including the Liberal Democrats, needs to be more humble and more positive. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make that clear.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that intervention, but I wonder what else about me will die next.
Statistics recently released by the Home Office have revealed an increase in violent crimes against the person across Wales. That type of crime now accounts for 17 per cent. of all recorded crime across the four police areas in Wales. My constituency borders Wales, so I know that the Welsh people are fed up of living with the threat of violent crime. They are being let down by a Government who must focus more energy and resources on reducing those figures. The good people of Wales cannot be allowed to live in constant fear of attack.
I am sorry to say that that fear is compounded by the continuing fall in the number of special constables in Wales. Since 1997, that eventful year, the number of serving specials has fallen from 1,140 to 811 in 2000—a fall of 41 per cent. More specials are needed in Wales for the fight against violent crime. While the Government claim that overall police numbers in Wales have gone up, they can no longer ignore the rapid decline of that important part of the force.
Recent Home Office-funded research made several recommendations on how to reduce the high wastage of special constables. Among the recommendations to

921
prevent many specials leaving the force in Wales are plans such as local monitoring of wastage and improvements to management structures. Those recommendations are laudable, but they smack of new Labour's increased bureaucracy. The people of Wales need real policies to keep quality men and women in the force. Such policies would improve the pay and conditions of specials in Wales and complement the essential recruitment drive in that area. I am pleased that the Government have expressed commitment on that issue, but that must be backed by practical results for the distressed people of Wales.
Another major problem is the availability of treatment, or lack of it, for victims of crime in Wales. It is not comfortable to be confronted with a situation in which millions of pounds are spent rehabilitating offenders, yet the victims of crime are ignored. Statistics published by the Home Office itself reveal that only 3 per cent. of victims see the person who has targeted them charged and put through the courts. A further 1 per cent. receive some kind of monetary compensation for violent crime.
Those pathetic statistics mean that the Government are overlooking the needs of 96 per cent. of Welsh people who become victims of crime. The same report highlights the fact that insensitive treatment by some official bodies ends up making things far worse. The Government spend tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on rehabilitation schemes for people convicted of crime. Victim Support points out that only a tiny fraction of that sum goes towards support and help for those unfortunate enough to be victims of crime.
Research by Victim Support confirms that most victims of crime, violent or otherwise, receive little or no help from the state other than services provided by volunteer groups. The chief executive of Victim Support, Dame Helen Reeves, said that that negligible level of support is unacceptable. She said:
"It is staggering to think that even though 14 million crimes are committed every year in England and Wales, most public services turn a blind eye to the specific needs of those affected."
About 23 per cent. of the population are affected. Dame Helen is referring to the lack of awareness in agencies such as the NHS and housing departments. Some great things are achieved with rehabilitation, but it is not just the criminal's future activities in society that deserve consideration. The lives of the victims of crime can be changed radically. Coming to terms with such upheaval can be difficult and traumatic, so it is as important from a sociological perspective to ensure that the victims can interact positively in future as it is to do so for the criminals themselves. Rehabilitation for the victim may include involvement with official bodies such as the NHS or housing departments, so it is essential that such organisations are equipped with the finances and the training to be helpful, rather than damaging, to the unfortunate victims of crime.
That principle is true anywhere, but it is particularly applicable in areas with unacceptably high levels of violent crime, such as Wales. Violent crime in Wales unfortunately permeates all aspects of life across the border. It is a sad fact that nearly every major hospital in
922
Wales has its own police officer to protect medical staff from the threat of violence. The Western Mail carried out a survey which revealed that NHS trusts in Wales are:
"so concerned about verbal and physical abuse by patients that they are either already funding the services of a police officer or have plans to employ one."
As the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff recorded 788 incidents of violent crime in a 10-month period, the new measure is hardly surprising. Statistics show that the employment of those police officers is proving to be effective. Indeed, Ysbyty Gwynedd, which had recorded 508 incidents of violent crime in a year, managed to reduce that figure by 35 per cent. following the employment of a police officer by the North West Wales NHS Trust. That sounds like an improvement, but surely such a move should never have been necessary. There is still an average of almost one violent incident per day at the hospital. When violent crime prevents doctors and nurses from doing their job, the situation is clearly out of hand. I recognise the good work that has been done to reduce crime in Wales, but the figures for violent crime are still distressing. Not enough attention is being paid to reducing these upsetting incidents.
In 1997, the number of crimes of violence against the person in Wales was 17,386. After almost five years of Labour government, that figure stands at 38,230, which represents an increase of 120 per cent. The total figure for violent crime in Wales in 1997 was 20,071. That figure has increased by more than 100 per cent. to 40,880 in the past five years. Why is Labour neglecting to rectify such an unacceptable element of Welsh society?
I know that the Government will point to an increase in police numbers in some areas of Wales. Some types of crime, I am happy to report, are being reduced, but violent crime—from preventing the incidents, right through to conviction and victim support—is not receiving the attention in Wales that it needs. Will the Government pledge today to start to right that wrong? Will they give some assurance of practical solutions to the present frightening situation, which is a reality for too many people in Wales?
6.1 pm
Albert Owen(Ynys Môn): I am proud to speak in this Welsh affairs debate, on the eve of St. David's day. I hope in future to take part in the debate on the eve of a St. David's day public holiday. I was one of the Members who signed early-day motion 662, and I shall give my staff the day off tomorrow so that they can spend St. David's day with their families. We should start to recognise St. David's day.
I shall concentrate on the Welsh economy and the need for even economic development throughout Wales. I shall also discuss the practical arrangements between the National Assembly for Wales and Parliament. As a newly elected Member and one of the first batch of post-devolution Members from Wales, I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that that settlement works for the people of Wales.
The Welsh economy has made good progress since 1997. It enjoys the fruits of the Chancellor's labour, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We have the lowest interest rates, low inflation, low mortgage rates and low unemployment. The Government's desire for a

923
stable economy is shared by the Welsh business community that I meet weekly, against a background of boom and bust under the Conservatives.
Mr. Prisk: Boom and bust?
Albert Owen: More bust than boom, it must be said.
The Labour Government's policies, such as the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, along with the new deal, have helped the unemployed and the low-paid in my constituency. Youth unemployment has been cut drastically. That means that school leavers no longer move from the classroom to the dole queue, but receive real training and hope for the future.
In my constituency, some 2,000 people had an immediate rise in earnings when we introduced the minimum wage. Almost 50 per cent. experienced a doubling of their hourly rate to £3.60. Let us not forget that the Conservative Government opposed those measures, and Plaid Cymru sat on the fence and made no decision about them.
Prior to my election to the House, I ran an advice and training centre. I saw the impact of the minimum wage and working families tax credit on unwaged people and those on low wages. However, in an area of high long-term unemployment such as mine, those benefits do not have the same impact as in the rest of Wales. Yes, unemployment is down. On the claimant count in my constituency, it stands at 7.7 per cent., which is down 0.5 per cent. on the previous year. On the residents base count, which is available in the House of Commons Library, male unemployment stands at 8.7 per cent., which represents a decrease. I welcome any drop in unemployment, but at 7.7 per cent., it is too high. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s in my constituency unemployment remained twice the average in Wales. One statistic that is a legacy of the representation of my constituency by the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru in the past two decades is the evidence of depopulation in two successive censuses. Mine is the only county in Wales that has seen such a drop in its population. Most stark is the depopulation among young people: 18 to 36-year-olds are leaving in droves to find jobs and opportunities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. With them goes the Welsh language and the Welsh community spirit that they hold, and the communities that people like me want to support. It is economic decline that leads to loss of the language in constituencies such as mine. It is not incomers who are responsible, as some have suggested, but lack of economic opportunity.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Will he be specific on this point: when in the two decades to which he referred did he see decline in Anglesey? Exactly when during that time was Plaid Cymru in government here or in Cardiff, or even in control of the local authority in Anglesey?
Albert Owen: The answer is firmly to say that when Plaid Cymru was elected to represent us in 1987, the individual concerned promised a big difference from the situation with his Tory predecessor. There was no such difference, but only a continuation. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
924
Let me turn to skills training. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke in answer to a question that I asked in Welsh questions yesterday about the vocational qualifications that are coming in at GCSE level. It is important that people in my area have the opportunity at a young age to get vocational training so that they can enter the jobs market.
I want deliberately to be critical of the Welsh Development Agency. We have heard from previous speakers about the boom areas in north Wales, but unfortunately, such areas do not come as far west as Ynys Mon. If we are to achieve an inclusive Welsh society, we need even economic development and it must come across the Menai bridge to Anglesey to provide job opportunities.
I am conscious of the time and I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall move straight to my conclusions. In 1997, people in Wales looked forward to a new, inclusive Wales. We were promised a bonfire of quangos and a more inclusive society. I am a pro-devolutionist and I will fight for devolution and to ensure that the devolution settlement works. However, if we are serious about devolution, we have to devolve economic opportunities throughout Wales.
I said that I was proud to speak in this debate. I am proud to do so as a Labour Member. I quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's predecessor, the first Secretary of State for Wales, who once said:
"I am not merely a Labour man. I am more than a member of the Labour party—I am also a Welshman. As a Welshman, I want to see Wales, all of Wales, to have a share in the economic development of the United Kingdom, and not allow it to slip back into an economic and industrial backwater, as it did under the Tories. I want to see a confident, forward-looking strong Wales in a strong United Kingdom."
I believe that this Government, in partnership with the National Assembly for Wales, can deliver that.
6.8 pm
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—or for Ogwr—who is sadly not in his place. I should say that I have had some problems with the pronunciation of my name since I have been in the House, so it is a great relief to see someone else with an exotic name taking his place in the Chamber. I use the word "exotic" because he is a Davies and I am a Williams.
Perhaps it is stating the obvious to say that it is very appropriate for us to debate the Welsh language on dydd Gwyl Dewi, St. David's day. It is especially so because this year marks the 40th anniversary of Saunders Lewis's seminal radio lecture, "Tynged yr Iaith"—"The Fate of the Language". It led directly to the establishment of Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg—the Welsh Language Society, which has proved such a dynamic force in Wales in the past 40 years. It is loved by some people, loathed by many but rarely ignored.
The issue of the languages of Wales is wide, perhaps as wide-ranging as life, given that language permeates all aspects of human activity. It is not surprising that the Welsh language is close to the hearts of those of us who speak it, those who have learned it and others who do not speak it but support it. We are bound to have mixed feelings as we survey the state of the language today. We eagerly await the results of the census that was held last year. They will give some idea of the language's health.

925
We have some information, thanks to Professors Carter and Aitcheson at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth and the Mercator project there. For example, we know that approximately 500,000 people speak Welsh and that the age distribution of speakers is changing. In the past, the language was predominantly spoken by older people. That proportion is declining, but that of young people who speak Welsh is growing quickly. The language is getting younger, and that is a hopeful sign.
We also know that half the Welsh speakers live in the north and west of Wales—the so-called heartland areas—and that half live in the south and east, which are not generally regarded as Welsh-speaking strongholds. However, there are more Welsh speakers in Cardiff than in Llyn and Eifionydd in my constituency, and more in Swansea than in Dwyfor. Public services are fairly easily available through the medium of Welsh in constituencies such as mine, but they are not so easily found in other areas where there are larger Welsh-speaking populations.
The number of Welsh learners is increasing every year, thanks to the dedicated efforts of learners and their teachers throughout Wales. I pay tribute to the National Language Centre at Nant Gwrtheyrn in my constituency. It has done remarkable work for more than 20 years.
Welsh speakers in the heartland areas perceive that the language is under threat as the number of communities where it is the everyday means of communication diminishes. The danger to the language must be taken seriously. Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and supporters of the language in Wales profoundly regret the fact that the Housing (Wales) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) promoted recently, was talked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Out-migration poses a genuine threat, as does the relatively poor economic position of Welsh speakers when compared with that of English speakers in the north and the west. A former colleague, Dr. Delyth Morris of Bangor university, undertook research that shows a direct link between Welsh speaking and a lower position in the socio-economic order. Clearly, that should be tackled.
The Welsh language is the subject of consultation by the National Assembly. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to its conclusions. We also look forward to sufficient resources being made available to carry out any recommendations. Resources are crucial. Any conclusions that the National Assembly reaches about further legislation will be especially interesting to hon. Members. I hope that if it recommends further legislation, a way will be cleared for it here.
The legislative history of the Welsh language is illuminating. The Act of Union of 1532 aimed to expunge
"all sinister usages and customs",
that is, speaking Welsh. It was a matter of pride to me as a younger man to be notorious for such "sinister usages and customs".
The Act also states:
"No person who uses the Welsh speech or language should have or enjoy any manner of office or fees in the realm of England or Wales or any of the King's dominions."
That led to centuries of keeping the language under the hatchet, the denial of basic human rights, and terrorising children merely for speaking their language.
926
Matters progressed with the Welsh Language Act 1967. I shall not detain the House with the details of the Act, except to say that it introduced the concept of equal validity—that is, that Welsh was as valid as English. The Act, however, contained the statement:
"In the event of a discrepancy between an English and a Welsh text, the English shall prevail."
For example, "dau a dau yn bedwar"—which means "two and two is four" in Welsh—could be supplanted by "two and two is five" in English. That is clearly ludicrous.
The Welsh Language Act 1993 states that Welsh and English should be treated on a "basis of equality". The use of Welsh is, however, qualified, in that it should be
"reasonably practicable and appropriate in the circumstances."
These issues need to be addressed, and I hope that the National Assembly will steer its recommendations in this direction, possibly with a view to legislation.
Some hon. Members might remember that the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales, when he was in this place, opposed the Welsh Language Act 1993. He said that it was a Tory Act, and that Labour would act differently in government. That was the last we heard of that promise, but we shall see what comes from the review by the National Assembly.
The 1993 Act introduced the concept of language schemes in the public sector, and public bodies throughout Wales now have plans for implementing the principles of the Act. Significantly, however, these language schemes were not extended to the private sector. It is perfectly possible and reasonable for the private sector to adopt language schemes. Indeed, the Welsh Language Board has informed me that five large, established enterprises have already done so. The emphasis on size here is crucial. Those organisations are able to absorb the costs involved, and I am sure all hon. Members will recognise that there is a cost element to ensuring that people have the basic right to use the language of their choice in communication not only with the Government but with commercial enterprises.
The problem is how to extend this best practice from the five large organisations to other commercial organisations. We see a specific role for the Welsh Language Board there, but it will need resources. Indeed, resources are the crucial element in creating the power to bring about change. The resources are the power. The three elements to language planning—I shall try to say them slowly—are legitimisation, institutionalisation and power. If we change the law, we legitimise the use of the Welsh language. If we extend the powers of the Welsh Language Board, we institutionalise it, and if we provide the resources, we provide the power for change.
6.18 pm
Mr. Wayne David: It is sometimes difficult to chart the progress of this Labour Government simply by speaking in vague generalities. So, in the short time available to me, I shall give some specific examples of how Labour is benefiting some of the poorest communities in Wales. I shall begin with the Aber valley, a small valley just north-west of Caerphilly. It contains two small communities: Abertridwr and Senghenydd, the village where the largest mining disaster of the last century occurred. This community has some of the most acute poverty, the poorest health and the lowest incomes anywhere in Wales.

927
It is significant, however, that today the community is coming together behind the National Assembly's Valleys First initiative. Resources are also coming into one of the great community institutions of Abertridwr, the YMCA. The YMCA has been massively expanded with a grant of £650,000, providing real opportunities for the community as a whole and for disadvantaged young people. The question is, where is that money coming from? Two thirds of it is from objective 1 funding. Objective 1 money is coming into south Wales and west Wales because of a deal that was struck by a Labour Government.
Only a few months ago, we heard a great deal about the lack of match funding and long delays. The reality is that we have match funding: a formula is in place that goes beyond Barnett to ensure additionality. Projects across west Wales and the valleys are materialising before our very eyes.
I mentioned the YMCA in Abertridwr, but if we extend our horizons slightly to the Caerphilly borough as a whole, we see resources going to Ystrad Mynach college to provide lifelong learning initiatives, a former colliery site in Penallta where Groundwork is taking a lead, a youth café in Bargoed with two youth workers and internet facilities, and a new business and technology centre in Tredomen where £160,000 has been provided. All those resources are meaningful and worth while.
In just one year, Caerphilly borough as a whole has received £7,485,381. That has come about not because of Plaid Cymru or the Conservatives, who argued for many years that it was not possible to get objective 1 funding. It came about because of the determination and advocacy of a Labour Government. Those practical results on the ground have come about because of Labour, and let us not forget that.
6.21 pm
Mr. Dai Havard: First, I should like to welcome my colleague and comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I, too, was in the rain, which is where my flu comes from, so I hope hon. Members will excuse me.
I want to talk about crime and disorder. Yesterday, I tried to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour orders, and the Tories tried to shout me down. I wanted to talk about the speed and frequency of their use from experience in my constituency. The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs visited my constituency recently to meet people in the community who are trying to deal with these issues. He saw the community police officers Kyle Manns and Cath Parker, who told him that they needed the tools to do the job, including help to speed up that process. That is why I want to raise this issue.
We have a strong local partnership to deal with these problems. We bring all the agencies together—the local authority, the youth justice team and the health boards—so we are able to examine the issues across the piece. One of the organisations involved is Safer Merthyr Tydfil, and we have an experience to relate from which others may learn. It helped to establish community warden schemes, and people have since moved from those agencies to Government Departments, from which has come the experience of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is replicating those schemes in England.
In my constituency, this activity is carried out by the voluntary sector. I want to make a plea. The involvement of the voluntary sector is a good thing—it is not a local
928
authority scheme—but to maintain its involvement, it needs sustained funding, and I would like that matter looked into.
The police community takes most of the action against crime and disorder, and we are experiencing the benefits of intelligence-led policing. Others across the United Kingdom should consider that approach, because it is bringing benefits. We are working in partnerships, so I do not recognise the description that was given earlier—of my community fighting itself. The trend in the United Kingdom as a whole has been for the sickness rate of police officers to go up—it is about 12 days a year—whereas in Merthyr it is coming down, to 6 or 7 days a year.
The extra resources are being used for intelligence-led policing initiatives and good management processes, and they are bearing fruit and bringing benefits. In five years, domestic burglaries in my community have been reduced by 60 per cent. There are initiatives on violent crime which we need, as we know that we have a problem, but there is a 90 per cent. detection rate in Merthyr, and that is the highest in the force. At Christmas, we ran a special scheme called "crystal clear" which reduced by 28 per cent. the amount of facial and other injuries from bottles and glasses in pubs and clubs, which all hon. Members will know about.
We are learning from our own experience and I think we have something to offer others, but we need extra help. Although so many good things are happening we still have massive problems, not least the problem of drugs. I am glad that one of my hon. Friends mentioned that earlier. We need not just enforcement and reduction measures, but better treatment facilities.
Although we require the co-operation of all Government agencies if we are to provide help, we realise that we are making the improvements we are making only because of sustained investment by the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer. Redistribution is taking place. That is something the Tories would never do, something the Liberals cannot do, and something that narrow nationalism would destroy.
6.25 pm
Mark Tami: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I too praise my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for an excellent maiden speech.
As many Members will know, in the early 1980s Deeside experienced the greatest number of redundancies ever experienced in one day. Ten thousand people lost their jobs at Shotton steelworks, and many thousands of job losses followed as a knock-on effect. The community spirit went into free fall, crime rocketed, and the hopes of youngsters were shattered. Those events became a lasting testament to the Tory Government's industrial policy—and now the Tories have the nerve to talk of being the friends of the steel industry and its work force.
Since 1980 the community and policy-makers of north-east Wales have been striving for a strong and stable economy, looking to the future rather than the past. Massive strides in industrial development and expansion have been made since the steel closures. A major component in the reconstruction has been the creation of the Deeside industrial park, in which my predecessor Lord Jones played a vital role.

929
Deeside lies on the English border, and acts as a motor for the entire economy of north Wales, Cheshire, the Wirral and Merseyside. Without the industrial park, the biggest of its kind in Europe, that would not be possible. Because we have focused on building for the future, tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs have been created in north Wales and the north-west of England. No barriers exist between the two regions, which rely on each other for growth and strength.
Yesterday's announcement by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of improvements in the north Wales link to the north-west and the M56 is excellent news, both for Alyn and Deeside and for north-east Wales in general. The route constitutes an important link in the economic bond between the north-west and north Wales, and the improvements are crucial to economic growth in the region. The National Assembly for Wales has welcomed the plans, considering them vital to economic expansion.
Last Friday, however, a panel of Assembly Members decided to rule out the expansion of the Deeside industrial park. In my view, the reason given for refusing planning permission to double the size of the park was not justifiable. The Assembly's inspector claimed that the land on which the park would be expanded was of high quality, and that the area's farming industry would therefore be compromised. While I fully support our farmers in Wales, we should remember that the original park was built on that land. If such a decision had been made in the 1980s, we would not have the jobs that we have today.
I wanted to speak for longer, but I know others want to contribute.
6.28 pm
Kevin Brennan: In the three minutes available to me, I will say something about some of the problems experienced by Cardiff, as Wales's capital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has an important three-minute constitutional speech to make.
The press, early-day motions and speeches in the House often criticise Cardiff as a capital. It is frequently alleged that it sucks in resources—possibly because people in Cardiff did not vote for devolution, although the swing in the 1999 referendum was one of the largest in Wales. Cardiff, however, makes an important contribution to the economy. Members may not realise that, in 2000, 70,600 people came into Cardiff from the surrounding communities to work each day. The fact that those people went home and spent money in their communities represents a vital contribution to the south Wales economy. It is impossible to separate Cardiff s economy from that of the rest of south Wales; south Wales would be a much poorer place without that vibrant economy.
Cardiff still has problems, however. Levels of unemployment in my constituency are frequently among the highest in Wales. Month after month, communities such as Ely in my constituency are in the top four when it comes to deprivation—although I see that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) finds that amusing.
930
There are real housing problems in my area. Many newspaper column inches are devoted to the problems of rural housing in Wales, but those problems pale into insignificance when compared with the housing problems in Cardiff. House prices in my constituency are very high. Ironically, many of the most expensive houses are owned by people who have come to live in Cardiff from some of the communities mentioned by Opposition Members.
That is not a bad thing: it is good, as we in Cardiff encourage diversity of language, culture, and race. However, I shall give the House a few figures relating to housing in my constituency. For example, the average price for a terraced house in Cardiff is £83,000. In the Canton area of my constituency, the average price is £102,000.
Over the past 20 years, the local council has sold 9,000 properties under the right-to-buy legislation. Of those, only 900 were flats. At the current rate, the number of council properties remaining in Cardiff will fall in a couple of years to 13,600.
I shall have to skip many of the figures that I have prepared, but there is one statistic that I must share with the House. In Canton, there were 1,119 applicants last year for three-bedroom council housing. Three properties became available in that period.
I could say much more on the subject, but I shall do so on another occasion.
6.30 pm
Ian Lucas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and to my comrades for allowing me three minutes in which I may ruin my political career.
I intend to make what I hope is a constructive proposal with regard to the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster. My premise is that Wales and the United Kingdom are inextricably linked. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has spoken already about the close links between north-east Wales and the north-west of England. It is clear that the future for north-east Wales, where there has been much prosperity, lies in working with the rest of the United Kingdom to take matters forward.
However, I am also a convinced devolutionist. I believe that we need to devolve as much power as possible to the different countries in the United Kingdom, and to the different regions. There are regions within Wales, and we need to think of devolution not as a nationalist matter but as a way of securing better government.
I believe that the way ahead is through the use of draft legislation. This Labour Government have successfully pioneered what most hon. Members agree is a good way of improving scrutiny. We need to consider more draft legislation, especially Bills relating to Wales that come to us prior to Second Reading. I think that all hon. Members would agree that those Bills need to be looked at more closely.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already spoken about the National Assembly for Wales and Westminster looking at Bills in parallel. I do not see why there should be anything to prevent the National Assembly and hon. Members with Welsh constituencies from looking at draft legislation together in a Joint

931
Committee. In that way, the people involved could present suggestions and discuss matters in a positive manner, before a Bill reached Second Reading.
I believe that it would be important for the discussion taking place at that stage that no vote would be held in such a Joint Committee. Proposals put forward by the Wales Office and the Welsh Assembly Government should be considered in a Joint Committee consisting of members of the Assembly and Members of Parliament. The opportunity to meet members of the Welsh Assembly in that way would be very positive, for us and—more importantly—for the people whom we represent.
If we are going to make devolution work, we must start a dialogue for the benefit of the people whom we represent. I believe that the proposal that I am floating is a starting point for discussion. I am a new Member and I want to try to make the situation better, which I think can be done. I would like hon. Members of all parties to talk about the issue and try to improve matters.
6.35 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I am making a guest appearance at the Dispatch Box tonight—perhaps I could use the phrase "famous for 12 and a half minutes". It is a delight to be back at the Dispatch Box at a time when Wales is doing better. That is nothing to do with the Secretary of State or the Government, because I am not talking about the Welsh economy, the health service, tourism or agriculture—not even a video referee could hide the Government's lack of progress in those areas. Incidentally, were it not for the video referee and the enthusiasm of Scott Quinnell, Wales would be going to Saturday's game against Italy one up and on their way to the six nations championship.
The Secretary of State referred with some glee to the general election result, but I must remind him that there was a 6 per cent. fall in the Labour vote in Wales. In his own constituency, there was a 5.25 per cent. swing to the Conservatives. The Labour vote in Wales fell by 220,000, or a quarter of the people who voted Labour in 1997. I remind the Under-Secretary, too, that the Conservative party is still, in electoral terms, the second party in Wales, with 50 per cent. more votes than the next party on the list.
Much of what the Secretary of State said was fairly predictable. Much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had to say, by contrast, was very much to the point, especially what he said about the grotesque favouritism shown to Mr. Mittal's offshore activities at the expense of the Welsh steel industry.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—for the Secretary of State's benefit, there was a 4.05 per cent. swing to the Conservatives in that constituency—talked about the health service in Wales. I remind him of the Government's record: there are 4,000 people in Wales who have been waiting more than 18 months for treatment, and since 1997 there has been an 850 per cent. rise in the number waiting for their first appointment in an out-patients department.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made an interesting, varied and sometimes wandering speech. He took the moral high ground, almost oblivious of the activities of the leader of his party in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I should make myself clear: I mean the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Welsh Assembly.
932
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made a worthy maiden speech, following his predecessor, Sir Ray Powell, although sometimes I felt that he may have pushed the limits of political controversy. He has succeeded an excellent Member of Parliament and I am sure that he, too, will serve the people of Ogmore well.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some predictable points. He made serious points on objective 1, which I will come to in a moment, and then made a predictable plea for a larger block grant.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the swing against the Conservatives was in my constituency?
Mr. Walter: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has got the better of me, but I should point out that I am still waiting for the bottle of champagne that I should have been awarded in the Adoption and Children Bill Standing Committee for the best pronunciation of his constituency by an Opposition Member.
I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) that we have yet another Gower boy—the hon. Member for Ogmore in the House. The hon. Member for Gower made an impassioned speech on the problems of the cockle industry in the Loughor estuary, and I am now better informed on diarrhetic shellfish poisoning than I was at the beginning of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) gave a clear and concise view of the Welsh economy, and discussed growth in Wales during a period of considerable change under a Conservative Government. I was particularly impressed by his commitment to the small business sector; and in pointing to the divergence of the English and Welsh economies he highlighted the different policies on business rates.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, talked about the plight of Wrexham and the potential for city status, and about university status for the North East Wales institute. At one stage, I thought that he was going to ask for a new underground system and international airport for Wrexham. I was concerned about his point about bias on S4C. I am not sure that I have ever noticed bias. Certainly, I, an English-speaking MP, have been included on its programmes. I have always admired its tremendously helpful coverage outside Wales, particularly its Saturday evening club rugby programme, even if the subtitles are about two minutes behind the action.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made a good speech on the interaction between the environment and industry, and strayed into the subject of wind farms and renewable energy. As always, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke with passion on women's policy and prisons policy. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made an old-fashioned nationalist—socialist, even—contribution, but he gave a very good trailer for next week's "Mittalgate" debate, which we await with interest.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a good speech on urban renewal. Uncharacteristically, he did not mention the Tories once, which was a refreshing and intelligent development. My hon. Friend

933
the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) told us of the fate of his daffodil, for which the Liberal Democrats were, I think, responsible. None the less, he gave a key speech on crime and the fears of ordinary people. His plea for better policing and use of the specials was very welcome.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) struggled to say something positive about employment in his constituency under a Labour Government. I am afraid that the speeches by the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) were somewhat curtailed by the numbers who wanted to speak.
Two factors have dominated the past year in Wales, one of which must be foot and mouth disease. Some 118 farms were devastated by confirmed outbreaks, but the impact was far wider, affecting the entire agricultural sector and the communities in which those farms are located. We all know about the number of goats, pigs, cattle and sheep that had to be slaughtered. That was bad enough, but the businesses that depend on those farms and on agriculture have suffered as a result of the disease, as has tourism throughout Wales. As we maintain calls for a ban on substandard imports into this country, there must also be a very real effort to ensure that we hold a public inquiry into the entire foot and mouth outbreak.
The second factor is the economy, which we discussed. Other hon. Members spoke about job losses and manufacturing, and many spoke about objective I money. It is right that we should continue to say, as I have said before, that no new United Kingdom Treasury money was committed to objective 1. There was new European money, but the other money had to come from existing budgets. Now we are witnessing a very slow development of objective 1. The notion that inertia has gained its own momentum takes on new meanings when it comes to the allocation of objective 1 money. After two years, business in Wales is exasperated and frustrated that less than 3 per cent. of the allocated funds has been spent.
By the next St. David's day debate the focus will be on the National Assembly elections, and the people of Wales will be able to pass judgment on a second term of Labour Government in London and the cosy Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in Cardiff. It will be a judgment on the National Assembly building, a judgment on Corns and Mittal, a judgment on education in Wales, a judgment on foot and mouth, a judgment on crime and a judgment on the national health service in Wales. I will make no predictions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but I can tell the House that, as far as the people in Wales to whom I speak are concerned, time is running out for Labour in Wales.
6.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): May I at the outset give a temporary welcome to the stand-in on the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)?
The debate has demonstrated again the depth of experience and knowledge of Welsh Members and the importance that we collectively attach to this special day of debate. The first such debate was graced by the words

934
of Nye Bevan and I know that all parties in the House will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the new Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke so well today in the tradition of Nye Bevan, outlining the practical politics demonstrated by democratic socialism. His predecessor Sir Ray Powell will be missed, and I join all those who paid tribute to Ray today. He has a fitting successor in my hon. Friend, who in his maiden speech spoke movingly about his constituency and his people, for whom I have no doubt he will be a doughty champion in the coming years. He spoke of the real issues and concerns that affect real people.
This day of debate continues to be an important one for Welsh Members, as demonstrated by the fact that 18 Members have already taken part. Indeed, the Welsh contribution to the affairs of the House continues to grow in importance. Many Conservative Members predicted that devolution would leave Members from Wales with little to do, but the past three years have shown how wrong they are. Devolution has in fact increased the amount of Welsh business in the House. Most major public service Bills, such as those that we recently discussed concerning education and reform of the national health service, contain significant Wales-only clauses, and in the national health service (Wales) Bill, which the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, we shall be discussing a Wales-only Bill. The contribution to the House by Welsh Members remains strong and vibrant and will continue to be so in this, the Parliament of a united Britain.
I thank the spokesman for the main Opposition party, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for his kind and generous tribute to Ray Powell. As I said, I thank all colleagues for their comments to Ray. I am afraid that afterwards, the hon. Gentleman took the usual tack down hill to one of his rants. He gave us a catalogue of horrors from the national health service and spoke about the problems of waiting lists, but the fact is that more people are being treated by the health service in Wales. One of the things that we shall need to do if we are to tackle the problems of waiting lists and improve the health service in Wales is to put in resources and reform. When we put in the resources, Conservative Members said that we were being reckless. When we proposed the reforms, they voted against the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. We remember what the Tory years involved in Wales—cuts in the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the Welsh economy. Like so many Conservative Members, he talks down the Welsh economy. He and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) talked about the problems that the manufacturing economy in Wales faces. The hon. Gentleman frequently uses cuttings from the Western Mail. I would not be without my cuttings from the Western Mail either. I have a copy of a report published in the business section of the Western Mail, which states:
"The economic slowdown is showing distinct signs of thawing with manufacturers reporting their highest level of optimism over future profits for two years, according to research from Cardiff Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber's latest quarterly economic survey shows that the marked downturns in domestic sales, exports and business confidence in previous quarters have reversed.
Confidence amongst manufacturers in improving profitability over the next year has risen dramatically".
That is the true picture of the future economy in Wales.

935
I note that in this evening's Evening Standard the Governor of the Bank of England has said:
"The economy has turned the corner and is starting to show clear signs of recovery."
It is important that we all recognise that we have had knocks and job losses in Wales, but it is also important that, rather than talking Wales down, we boost it. We have confidence in a new dynamic and energetic Wales—a Wales that has a rich heritage, a strong economy and a good future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke very well—and authoritatively, of course—on health matters. He welcomed the fact that spending on the NHS in Wales is three or four times above the rate of inflation. He spoke with authority because, as the first Labour Minister in the Wales Office after the 1997, he started to stop the rot in the NHS in Wales that the Tories had left us. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that.
I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for his tribute to Ray Powell. The hon. Gentleman went on to give a most interesting exposé of the new politics. I do not know much about the Liberal Democrats' new politics, but I know about being the victim of Liberal Democrat tactics. I was the Labour candidate in the 1992 general election campaign, fighting in Richmond in west London, and the Liberal Democrats carried out market research into the fact that I am Welsh. They asked people whether they were troubled that the Labour candidate was from Wales or was Welsh. All their literature throughout that campaign referred to the fact that I am Welsh. That is why I am not sure what their new politics involves.
I will ensure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) receives a full response to the questions that he has asked. Many of those issues were raised at the evidence sessions of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I believe will publish its report on objective 1 in October. The key role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State played in ensuring that additional funding has been provided, through Barnett-plus, to support our objective 1 initiatives must not be underestimated. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the case for recognising structural funds outside the Barnett formula was part of the last spending review. I further remind him that, on that occasion, the Government stood by Wales and provided the extra funding that we needed, despite speculation to the contrary.
At Question Time yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) raised an issue about the cockle fishery problems in Gower. I am aware of that problem. I will take on board the points that he has made and I shall certainly ensure that he is fully involved in any response on those issues that I receive from colleagues in other Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who does a tremendous job as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, said how well the emergency services responded when he was involved in a near-fatal accident recently. That is the point. When push comes to shove, we have some first-class public services. They are some of the best in the world, and we should be proud of them.
My hon. Friend also made some points about Wrexham gaining city status. I welcome the interest that has certainly been shown in the competition throughout Wales
936
for city status. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to announce the names of the new cities in the United Kingdom in March. My hon. Friend also spoke about the North East Wales institute's hopes of becoming a university, and I wish those involved well in their efforts. I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes about S4C, and I have no doubt that they will be taken on board by S4C in due course. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) recalled our history of environmental impoverishment, which I understand, as I come from the mining valleys of south Wales. My valleys are green again, as are the valleys across Wales, but I share the hon. Gentleman's commitment to ensuring that this gift of nature which mankind has now had a hand in retrieving and improving is made secure. It is right to describe the Welsh environment as one of the jewels in the Welsh crown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about issues related to hunting and welcomed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today. I share my hon. Friend's concerns about community sentencing and tagging, and I note her points. She has been a strong champion of women's rights, and I take on board her point about how we care for and handle women prisoners in Wales. She also spoke about domestic violence, which is a serious matter. I think that she was the only Member who raised the issue in relation to its effects on children. Too many incidents of domestic violence go unreported. Our clear message must be that domestic violence must be reported so that the services can respond and so that families are protected.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) contributed a series of smears and innuendos, to which he may want to return in the debate next week. I noted that he had not been speaking for more than five minutes before he had to start retracting some of his innuendoes, which is not untypical. I also note that he thought of himself as a prodigal son of the Labour party, and talked about socialism. Let me tell him this: when people from my party were fighting fascists in Spain, the founder of his party was declaring his admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.
Adam Price rose—
Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) welcomed the success of objective 1 and the changes that we have made to the heritage lottery fund.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) talked about the rise in violent crime. In fact, there has been a fall in violent crime in England and Wales in the past five years. I remind him that in the last year of the Conservative Government there was a 9.2 per cent. increase in violent crime in Wales.
Contributions were also made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). I am sorry that I am not able to respond to all of their points.
In the year since we last met in this forum, the people of Wales delivered their verdict on Toryism and nationalism in the general election. What a verdict it was.

937
The Tories were not required and very few nationalists were wanted. That will be the case in the Assembly elections, too. Why did the people of Wales reject Toryism and nationalism? Because neither have anything to offer our country. The Tory campaign had nothing to offer, and neither does the Tory Front Bench. The Tories tell us that our public services can never be improved, only privatised. They tell us that public services are destined for disaster and that the state can never help—it must only be rolled back. They scour the world for specious examples to back their case. We say that services can and will be improved, and we are not afraid to take the difficult decisions to make that happen. We have delivered the investment in public services that the Tories said was reckless, and we will deliver the reforms that the Tories say are impossible.
Nationalism remains a pale reflection of Toryism in Wales. The Tories and the nationalists both say that we cannot build a stronger Wales. The Tories blame public servants, while the nationalists—daffodil Tories—blame the English. They are welcome to each other. Wales does not want them, and neither do we. The brave new dawn of the nationalists that was predicted only months ago has turned into an endless nightmare. They have a weak and ineffective leader who is unable to take control or lead his party anywhere. Once again, we see the clear parallel between Toryism and nationalism. One party cannot decide whether to embrace or extinguish Thatcherism, while the other cannot decide whether to love or leave the language extremists. Both parties, though, are united by a narrow xenophobia—fear of the outsider.
Wales is growing in economic strength and confidence. It is doing so as part of the world's fourth strongest economy and the world's largest single market, but it is also proud of its traditions of solidarity and care. It was no accident that the national health service was founded by a Welshman—indeed, a man from my county of Monmouthshire. It was no accident that in June Wales returned a Labour Government with a clear mandate for investment in and reform of our public services.
We will be true to that mandate. We represent the true spirit of radicalism and reform in Wales. We will continue to turn Britain from the country that it became under the Tories into a country of which we can all be proud. My colleagues and I are determined that this Labour Government will deliver on our manifesto pledges, as we are doing now, throughout the country. We will ensure that the people of Wales and the people of Britain gain the services that they deserve and that our country needs. I have no doubt that Labour will succeed in the Assembly elections and go on to win a third general election.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

  Foot and Mouth
  7 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I have the honour to present a petition of citizens of the United Kingdom amounting to 250,000 signatures supported officially by the Countryside Alliance, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and, of course, a large number of citizens of the United Kingdom.
  The petition declares
  that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease has caused extensive damage, hardship and disruption to the farming and rural community, to the tourist industry and other businesses throughout the United Kingdom with consequent economic loss to those directly and indirectly affected and the economy of the United Kingdom.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons insist that Her Majesty's Government as a matter of urgent public importance, hold a fully independent public inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 into the causes, progress and administration of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2000/01, the adequacy of measures taken to investigate and to remedy the outbreak and with terms of reference to make recommendations (a) for the prevention of any recurrence, (b) with respect to financial compensation and relief and the application of European Union rules relating thereto and (c) for the future of agricultural and related interests and those of the rural tourist business community and the environment.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and my petition is along the same lines as his. The House will know that Cumbria was the county that was worst affected by the foot and mouth outbreak.
  This petition to the House is the petition of farmers, hoteliers, families and residents of south Cumbria, and carries some 2,000 signatures. The petition declares that the signatories
  believe a full independent public inquiry into the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic is needed on the grounds of establishing the effectiveness of the actions taken in combating the disease and to ensure that appropriate lessons to prevent future foot and mouth outbreaks are learned.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Prime Minister to heed public opinion in south Cumbria and set up a full independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Firearms Crime (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
7.3 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of gun crime, which troubles many Londoners, including a great many of my constituents. I have represented my constituency for 14 years. There is much to be proud of in Hackney. We have enormous creativity and culture, especially in arts and music. There are more artists per square mile in Hackney than in any other part of London. For generations, the area has been a staging post for economic migrants, and we are proud of that. Those migrants have gone on from Hackney to contribute to society as a whole.
Hackney has fairly good race relations, especially when one considers the diversity of its people. Hasidic Jews live side by side with people who have west African and Caribbean origins. Every language and nationality under the sun can be found in Hackney. When we compare our race relations with what happened in some northern towns over the summer, it is clear that we have much to be proud of because we have achieved genuine integration. Young people in Hackney mix and match each other's food, slang and dance music to astonishing effect.
But gun crime is casting a terrible shadow over my constituents. Hackney residents who have got used to the incompetence of the council, who glory in the multiculturalism, are genuinely frightened of gun crime. Gun crime in London, certainly until recently, has been largely confined to three hotspots: Lambeth and Southwark, Brent, especially the Harlesden area, and the Hackney and Tottenham area. One stretch of road in Clapton in my constituency is known as murder mile.
My constituents are frightened of waking up to find a corpse outside their house, as people have written to me to describe, or of being caught in gunfire. We have had cases of gunmen shooting at each other from speeding cars. One car came off the road, ploughed into a group of innocent people queueing for a bus, and people suffered serious injury thereby. We have had cases of disputes among young people at a party when a gunshot has gone through a wall, and a completely innocent person in another room who had nothing to do with the dispute has been shot.
We have had cases where bullets have gone through windows, missing a child sitting in a chair by inches. We have had cases of somebody getting into a dispute with a doorman at a club, going to get a machine gun and spraying a queue of innocent people who are waiting to go into the club. People pull guns in Hackney because of a dispute over a girl or merely to demonstrate how hard they are. Above all, my constituents are frightened of a phone call to say that their son, boyfriend, relative, neighbour, or even some young man whom they saw every day on the way to work has caught a bullet and is bleeding to death.
That has obviously been of some concern to me in recent years. I am working closely with Operation Trident in Hackney to increase community co-operation. One thing that people are genuinely terrified of is being a witness to a crime. I am working with Operation Trident to maximise co-operation in the widest community.
940
Operation Trident has a gallery of photographs of some of the criminals who have died in shootings. When one sees the pictures of those young men—younger than anyone in the House—lying on a pavement in a pool of blood, sometimes with their brains seeping out, one thinks not only that that has caused violence and mayhem for my constituents, but what a tragedy and a waste of life. These young men are dead even before the age that many young people leave university—and for what? That has made me focus on the issue as never before. What kind of community are we, what kind of people are we becoming, when young men hold their lives so cheaply that they will risk death? One can purchase a murder in Hackney for a very few thousand pounds.
In London, and possibly in other metropolitan areas such as Moss Side in Manchester, we face a different type of gun crime from that known in the past. Then, guns were the province of a specialised type of professional criminal, who took his gun to pursue a particular type of specialised crime and then, largely, took it home. It was interesting that those who tried to rob the millennium dome—it would have been one of the largest robberies in recent times—were not carrying guns. Professional criminals rarely carry guns because they know that being found with a gun at the scene of a crime automatically increases their sentence. Although the millennium dome robbers planned to take millions of pounds worth of diamonds, they went with nail guns and ammonia.
Walking the streets of Hackney and elsewhere in London, we have the young man who is steeped in a gun culture. He is routinely armed and will use his gun not just to pursue a specific criminal activity but in domestic disputes, to show how tough he is and because he has lost his temper with someone in a nightclub. The difference between professional criminals who are armed for a specific purpose and the kind of young man who is absorbed in a lawless, valueless gun culture, who walks the streets of Hackney, Battersea, Lambeth and Southwark, multiplies many times over the risk to innocent people, young people who are simply out enjoying themselves and people just walking the streets.
Let me say a word about "yardies"—a term much used in the media, but not one that I like. It is used to refer to a certain type of black gun criminal associated with the cocaine trade. I dislike the term because it is unhelpful and misleading about the nature of the problem. It suggests that all the people in question originate in Jamaica, but the police say that more than half the deaths are not of Jamaican criminals but of British-born blacks, many not even of Jamaican origin. My parents are from Jamaica and I am a proud Jamaican; I do not like a term that smears Jamaica.
The behaviour of these young men, the lawlessness, the gun culture, the criminality and the violence ultimately stem from wider problems of social exclusion that can be dealt with only in the very long term. Resources are needed for youth diversion and youth clubs. We must also examine educational failure and its links to social exclusion, especially of young black men. That is something that concerns me greatly.
Having got financial support from the Mayor of London, I am holding a conference on 16 March entitled "London Schools and the Black Child" which is to examine precisely the roots of educational failure of black children. When black children—children of African and Afro-Caribbean descent—enter the school system aged

941
five, they do as well as white and Asian children. By age 11, their performance starts to drop off, and by age 16, their achievement—especially that of black boys—has collapsed. We have to get to the roots of that problem. I have no doubt that the road to a tragic end taken by many of the young men in Operation Trident's rogues' gallery of corpses lying in a pool of blood started with educational failure.
The House might be interested to know that we started by organising a conference for 500 people, but by this morning my staff had registered 1,400 people and had to close the conference to any more. People want to talk about the issue. At another time, I shall talk to Education Ministers about how the Government need to focus specifically on the way in which the school system is failing children of African and Afro-Caribbean descent. It is a complex issue—often, children newly arrived from Africa do better than second or third generation British black children—and I do not seek to oversimplify, but I believe that an underlying problem is educational failure in inner London and the collapse of the school career of many black children.
To return to the specific issue of gun crime, there are of course problems of social exclusion. I and people like me have to work with the community to make sure that the community is co-operating and that the public are aware of victim protection schemes, which Trident operates. Victim protection is needed: in a recent case, a young woman sought to give evidence against black gun criminals; she was shot at point-blank range and put in hospital; she left hospital against the advice of police and went to Jamaica for a funeral, where she was again shot at point-blank range by the same criminal network. She returned to this country and her brother was kidnapped, but with bravery that I do not believe I could show, this girl gave evidence in court and a number of people were put behind bars. None the less, people hear such stories.
The point about gun crime in Hackney that my constituents find so distressing is that in those communities it is no secret who is committing those crimes. All the gun criminals have girlfriends, or mothers, or friends they boast to, or families at home who wash their shirts. Who is committing the crimes is no secret even to the police. The problem is getting people to come to court and bear witness. That is why I am pleased to work with my local police, to liaise with the community and to improve the witness protection scheme so that we can get convictions.
None the less, there are things that the Government should be doing. I call on Ministers to support the Mayor of London's measures to achieve a year-on-year increase in the number of police, comparable to the number in New York city. Council tax payers in London are ready to pay more council tax for that purpose—money for the police is the one aspect of the current budget that has not been disputed by any member of the Greater London Assembly—but ultimately moneys from general taxation will be required.
I was interested to read that the Home Secretary apparently threatened the Metropolitan police with intervention, reminding them that he had powers to intervene in under-performing forces. While the whole of London supports the Home Secretary in his concern about under-performing police forces, I hope that in stepping in
942
to intervene in the Metropolitan police, he would consult the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Authority. The Government could help to strengthen the Metropolitan police's performance management regime and empower the commissioner to hire and fire his own management. The Metropolitan Police Authority is interested in introducing a system similar to the New York ConStat system so that crime could be closely monitored locally, with resources redirected quickly, but that would mean a much clearer chain of command for the Metropolitan police. Currently, there is the Mayor, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Home Secretary and the boroughs; legislation may eventually be required because we need a much clearer line of command.
It is important that the Government encourage London boroughs to prioritise firearms offences in their crime and disorder reduction strategy. I am sorry that in many boroughs where gun crime is an issue, firearms offences are still not included in such strategies. My local police officers have raised with me the difficulty of confiscating money when they find it on known drug dealers. They showed me a photograph of a young man who was not working or claiming income support who was living in a flat in Docklands and paying £1,000 a week in rent. They took a photograph of him with plastic bags full of money—he had £55,000—but having found him in the flat with the money, they had to give it back to him. That does nothing to dent the morale of drug dealers. I understand that the Proceeds of Crime Bill will make confiscation easier, but I draw the problem to the Minister's attention.
Local officers have told me that it must be easier to extradite people charged with serious crimes abroad. People are walking the streets of London who have been charged with murder in Jamaica; for all kinds of technical reasons, it has proved impossible to extradite them. Ministers should look at that problem. Another issue raised with me both locally and by Scotland Yard officers in charge of Operation Trident is the penalty for the possession of firearms. Recently, policemen charged and prosecuted someone with two loaded firearms in his waistband in the middle of London. He did not have them to shoot rabbits or for self-protection; he did 18 months, and he will get out after doing half that.
The police believe strongly that we need to raise the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm. We are not talking about the professional criminal who takes a weapon out when committing a crime, then takes it home. We are talking about young men who swagger about all day long with firearms. If we increased the minimum sentence, that would help us to intervene in the culture where a gun is almost a style accessory and would deter people from holding guns for others. People with criminal records know that it is not a good idea to be found with a gun and get people without records to hold them. If people knew that they would do a minimum of five years if they were found with a gun, they would be deterred from holding guns for others.
The police are keen that the Government should look at legislation to ban imitation firearms. That may sound like trying to get the Government to ban water pistols, but the police argue that there are different categories of imitation firearms. No one could mistake children's plastic toys for firearms. Imitation firearms look genuine, but why should anyone want such a thing? The Brocock is an imitation firearm whose shaft can be bored through

943
and converted into a gun. The police are anxious that the Government consider legislation to ban, not children's toys, but intentional imitations of firearms, especially those that can be converted into usable firearms.
There is also the question of drug mules. I do not accept for a minute the media's idea that every speck of drugs found in the British isles is imported in the stomachs and orifices of girls flying in on Air Jamaica planes. None the less, drug mules coming into the country from Jamaica is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for communities such as mine, where some of the drugs end up, it is a tragedy for Jamaica, because it taints its name and that of its airline and it is a tragedy for those girls.
Holloway prison is next door to my constituency and I have often visited it. The largest single group of foreign nationals is Jamaican—girls who have been caught as drug mules. As somebody of Jamaican origin and as chair of the British Caribbean group, I want to see something done about that trade, both in the interests of my constituents and in the interests of those women, who are often told that they will get off with a caution. Many of them—more than the number recorded—swallow the drugs and die. That trade could be choked off. After the debate, I shall seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss in more detail what middle-ranking police officers have told me can be done about the drug Mule problem.
Gun crime always runs the risk of being sensationalised by a press looking for a story for the front page—something to make people shiver in their shoes. As somebody who lives in Hackney, represents the people of Hackney, has a young son, and knows very many women in Hackney and communities like it With adolescent and male relatives, I know what fear the topic of gun crime brings to the hearts of Londoners. The police, through Operation Trident, are moving towards a solution. Through education, I and others are trying to work on the wider social issues. However, there is more that the Government could do. In particular, I stress the issues of penalties for carrying a firearm and imitation firearms.
7.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on achieving the debate. It is clearly a matter of great importance to her constituents in Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, to people across London and, unfortunately, beyond as well: we are beginning to see similar problems in cities such as Bristol.
My hon. Friend has left me a little short of time. I shall try to reply to all the main points that she made, but if I do not manage to do so, I am sure that she will understand. I shall certainly write to her and I shall be happy to have the meeting that she suggested about how to deal with stuffers and swallowers coming in on Air Jamaica flights.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of the use of firearms in London. Operation Trident alone last year dealt with 18 incidents involving 21 murders and 135 incidents of non-fatal shootings. Already this year there have been five murders and 26 other shootings. My hon. Friend is obviously familiar with the work of Operation Trident. I met Commander Brown, who heads the operation, at the beginning of the month, and we discussed how such crimes could be countered more effectively.
944
My hon. Friend graphically explained that the Metropolitan police cannot be expected to deal with the problems entirely on their own. In the case of Operation Trident, they are often dealing with young men who carry firearms as part of a macho gun culture, and who are willing to use them to settle disputes over drugs and in other situations which on the face of it seem minor—for example, when disrespect has been shown. We have for many years prided ourselves on the comparatively low level of crimes involving firearms, and we are determined to counter the upward trend.
The Met have our full support in their efforts. Last year Operation Trident resulted in 442 arrests, mainly relating to firearms and possession of drugs with intent to supply, and recovered 130 firearms and associated ammunition. As a result of his worries about the level of gun crime, the Commissioner recently seconded a further 30 officers to Operation Trident and a further 20 officers to work within the shootings team of the serious and organised crime group.
Underlying much of the use of firearms is the market for drugs and especially crack cocaine. Customs, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are working together to try to reduce the amount of cocaine that is reaching the UK. Part of that work involves reducing the flow of cocaine from Jamaica, and Customs has had recent successes in preventing passengers from smuggling cocaine through Heathrow and Gatwick airports. However, I share some of my hon. Friend's concerns and I intend to examine with CIDA—Concerted Inter-agency Drugs Action—whether we are giving appropriate weight to that form of smuggling.
I know that that is neither the only nor the main method of entry for cocaine into the country. None the less, it is controlled by, and far more closely associated with, the crack cocaine market. The gun culture is also associated with that market, and it would be a little more difficult for such criminality to link in with some of the other supplies of cocaine in the country than with the small supply that is being brought in from Jamaica. As my hon. Friend said, it is brought in using women who are often as much victims as those who find themselves on the receiving end of the consequences of the drug trade in our cities. I want to explore further with the appropriate authorities whether we have got our thinking exactly right in terms of the recognition of the proportionate damage done by this form of entry of cocaine into the country.
Much more needs to be done to prevent the couriers from travelling in the first place. We are considering measures that might be taken to achieve that, including discussions with the Jamaican authorities. We also need to consider how to prevent Jamaican criminals from travelling to the UK. There is police co-operation between our jurisdiction and the authorities in Jamaica.
I understand and accept my hon. Friend's concern about terminology. I heard also what she said about the fact that a great number of these people are British-born blacks rather than Jamaicans. However, I am being told by the Metropolitan police authority—I hope that her information is the same—that a considerable element has close relations with Jamaica and is constantly returning there, and that association is a real problem. As she said, it is not the sole problem—there are other, far deeper issues—but it is a considerable part of the problem that

945
we face. I am planning to meet the Jamaican Minister of National Security and Justice when he visits the United Kingdom early next month.
Of course, we must do everything we can to reduce the opportunity for criminals to obtain firearms in the first place. We already have some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but we are committed to improving them to maintain public safety if that is necessary, and we have been working with the police to ensure good security of legally held weapons to prevent them from being stolen. We are also considering the need to establish strict controls on the deactivation standards. We want the same standards to apply throughout Europe, and we have been working closely with the European Commission to that end. Anybody who is minded to misuse guns should be left in no doubt that there are heavy penalties for these offences, including life for the most serious ones.
My hon. Friend was suggesting not necessarily that the maximum penalty was a problem in that regard, but that we might need to consider whether we should introduce minimum penalties in respect of some of these issues. I shall consult colleagues in the Home Department about the points that she made, and I agree to come back to her having thought about the consequences and the potential for some action.
Reference is often made to guns flooding the country. However, I have consulted the police, Customs and Excise and NCIS, and there is no evidence of organised or large-scale smuggling, and there appears to be no single main source of firearms held by criminals. Those sources in recent years include theft from legitimate owners, smuggling individual weapons, conversion of deactivated and replica weapons, and trophies of war brought back by service personnel.
946
My hon. Friend mentioned the Brocock. I do not know whether she realises that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs talked to the company responsible for importing the weapons. It has agreed to stop that. We must examine the regulations that affect the ability to convert weapons. It is as illegal to carry imitation weapons as to carry real ones in the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend described. We are actively considering whether we can do more.
My hon. Friend was right to say that if we are to be effective, we cannot leave the police to struggle with the problem on their own. I know that she has not done that, and that considerable effort has been made in Brent, where community safety partnerships have been at the heart of steering a targeted policing initiative to reduce violent and drug-related crime. It is important that people such as my hon. Friend and local people work with the police to give the community maximum confidence so that it can co-operate. However, I fully understand the issues that she raised such as intimidation and the problems that arise from it.
Operation Trident was created to establish links with the community, to work with it and to bring the police closer to it in tackling problems, and in considering whether appropriate protection is offered in all cases. There is clearly a problem with getting people to come forward to give the evidence, but that is essential if we are to take effective action.
My hon. Friend called for the ability to confiscate cash. The Proceeds of Crime Bill contains strong powers to give the police and Customs and Excise the same ability to confiscate cash that is found in-country as they currently have only at the border. We have been told for a long time that that is a problem—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Humanitarian Crisis (Afghanistan)
[Relevant documents: First Report from the International Development Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 300, and the Government's response thereto, HC 633.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
2.30 pm
Toney Baldry: When the Select Committee on International Development, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) were in Peshawar in the north-west frontier province of Pakistan in December, we visited the main depot of the World Food Programme where food aid was being transported from Pakistan through the Khyber pass to Afghanistan. Considerable quantities of food aid were being shifted and an impressive fleet of white-painted United Nations trucks was lined up at the depot. However, those trucks were not being used to transport food aid to Afghanistan because the UN authorities took the view that the security situation there was so unpredictable that they were unwilling to risk their personnel and, by inference, trucks to shift the aid. That was being done by local contract drivers in their trucks.
That starkly emphasises the Select Committee's concern about security, which was central to our report. We said:
"We remain to be convinced that the food delivered into Afghanistan can be distributed to all those in need, primarily because of poor security".
We went on to say:
"Everyone we spoke to, whether in London or Pakistan, stressed to us that the most serious barrier to humanitarian assistance has been, and remains, poor security …Security needs to extend to the secondary distribution network as well as to the supply route into Afghanistan. Delivering food into the country is not enough—it must be distributed as well".
We concluded that security is not simply a symptom of the recent conflict. The war may be over, but the risks remain.
When the non-governmental organisations gave evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday—we had a single evidence-taking session to update us—Sakandar Ali, the country representative of Islamic Relief, observed that he had received reports as recently as 19 February from its Kabul office where international aid workers were being targeted. Mr. Roseveare, acting director of Oxfam's humanitarian department, observed:
"The delivery of operations and food assistance to remote locations is much less certain and that there is plenty of evidence that local forces do not have a sense of looking to the centre for their lead."
316WH
Oliver Burch of Christian Aid commented:
"In practice, the local people, they have to relate to their gentleman in their valley or the next valley who can command 50 or 100 rifles. This is still the situation… there appears to have been no disarmament. Armed groups in the countryside are as prevalent as ever. There seems to be in general increased intertribal tension. This is something new."
The security situation looks uncertain and the working team on food security, which produced a report on food security in Afghanistan five months before 11 September, raised similar concerns to those of the Select Committee.
When the NGOs gave evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday, Elizabeth Winters, special adviser to the British Agencies Afghanistan group, said:
"It is worth reporting back to you what every single Afghan has ever said to any of us—I checked this with my colleagues before coming in—which security and stability we cannot rebuild our country'."
She went on to say:
"The economy improved 25% in the six months when there were no hostilities in 1995. Entrepreneurs are waiting to come back in. Hey, they ring you up and say 'we want to invest, as long as the security is OK, we are ready to get this country back on its feet' but we do need more Forces, and not just in Kabul. We need them elsewhere."
Sakandar Ali, to whom I have already referred, observed:
"More troops are required to support the central government."
Security is essential for food distribution in Afghanistan, but who is responsible for providing such security? Who pays? Under what authority is such security to be provided? The issue is relevant not only to Afghanistan. The Committee expressed a general concern that more should be done to track what is happening in failing states. The United Nations Children's Fund told us in evidence that it currently classifies some 31 states as being in a state of emergency or crisis, with an additional 35 on a watch list. All of those are either failed or failing states. We expressed the hope that the Government's response to our report would
"address the issue of failing states, how they are monitored, and what level of preparedness the international system can maintain to respond to problems in these failing states."
Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I take my hon. Friend back to the issue of security? The non-governmental organisations that we met on Tuesday expressed the view that the Afghans want more British and foreign troops. Does my hon. Friend agree that a useful means of delivering aid might be to train the native Afghan police and armed forces? I know that both the British and the Americans are doing that in some way or other, but I understand from newspaper reports that American and British troops are training different forms of forces. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
Tony Baldry: I was going to come to that, because there are disturbing reports that police training is insufficient and not enough members of the previous military forces in Afghanistan are being demobilised.

317WH
Chris Patten, the European Commission's External Relations Commissioner, commented in a recent article that
"if we are to deny Al-Quaeda and other networks the territory from which to plan future atrocities, we have to do all we can to bolster weak or failing states and prevent them falling into the clutches of the Bin Ladens of this world".
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister, when in Freetown in Sierra Leone, said that he felt very proud of the role that British soldiers had played in Sierra Leone, and went on to observe that he knew that they had
"been joined by soldiers of many, many other countries, and they have been joined in particular in the endeavours that they have had to carry out as Armed Forces by a strong sense of will in the international community that Sierra Leone was not going to be allowed to descend into chaos and conflict, but had to be rescued and helped for the future."
I do not think that any of us are under the illusion that Sierra Leone would have been rescued if the international community, led by the United Kingdom, had not intervened by force of arms. In their response to our report, the Government describe that as
"demonstrable security; in Sierra Leone this was provided for by a large and effective international UN-led peace-keeping force working closely with the National Security Force to give confidence to both refugees and international aid workers to return."
Some of us were fortunate to have a briefing from the editor of Africa Confidential. He commented that, even in Sierra Leone, with the help of UK forces, the situation is still fragile and is still threatened by Liberia, another failing state. One of the features of failing states is that they not only fail their own people, but invariably risk the security of neighbouring countries. No one is under any illusions that, had it not been for UN and UK intervention in Sierra Leone, the situation would not have improved; nor is anyone under the illusion that, had it not been for the coalition intervening in Afghanistan by force of arms, the Taliban would not have been defeated and Afghanistan would not be, as it is now, taking steps towards reconstruction and democracy.
However, as demonstrated by the recent murder at Kabul airport of a member of the Afghan Cabinet, security in Afghanistan is still pretty notional. Kabul is the only part of the country where the international security assistance force is helping to maintain security. Even there, the concept of security still seems fairly illusory. I turn to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. In The Sunday Telegraph of last week, Robert Fox, who recently spent a week with the UK forces in Kabul, reported that
"crime politics and peacekeeping are inextricably linked in Kabul. A spate of robberies and looting plaguing the city is believed to involve the local Police Force, gangster warlords, and the political parties…There are 100,000 or so men of the Northern Alliance still armed on the streets. They are supposed to be disarmed under the Bonn and Tokyo Future of Afghanistan Agreement to be replaced by June by a trained army of up to 60,000 but the transition is turning into a typical Afghan shambles…At the heart of the difficulties is the fact that so far not a cent of the US$2 billion reconstruction funding, voted by the Tokyo agreement, has found its way to Kabul…nobody is prepared to pay the police and there is no scheme for demobilising the armies."
318WH
The consequence of what appears to be some UN procrastination is the high possibility that Turkey will not assume the lead role for the international security force on the premise that it cannot see a clear mandate. UK forces will then become stuck there, and the Prime Minister's commitment that British troops will be in Afghanistan for only 90 days seems overly optimistic. That is all the more surprising because, when President Karzai of Afghanistan was in London recently, he asked the Prime Minister whether the United Kingdom would commit a larger number of troops for a longer time to peacekeeping in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister declined. I do not think that that was an unreasonable response by the Government.
Setting aside our own security needs in Northern Ireland, UK troops are currently involved in peacekeeping in 37 countries throughout the world, many of which will at times have appeared terminally conflict ridden, such as Sierra Leone, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In recent years, there have been few occasions when UK troops have not been part of UN peacekeeping operations. Unlike Turkey, the Foreign Secretary can see a clear mandate for the United Kingdom Government and asserts that the international security force will give the United Kingdom an international role with which it is comfortable.
However, those who had hoped that the end of the cold war would bring an enduring peace dividend must now recognise the position. In the foreword to the slightly bizarre recent Green Paper on private military companies, the Foreign Secretary said:
"we find ourselves in a world of small wars, and weak states. Many of these states need outside help to maintain security at home. There may also be an increasing need for intervention by the International community."
Sixty-three countries currently contribute peacekeeping troops to the UN but, as the Green Paper further observes,
"it is clear that at least some countries that contribute to UN peacekeeping do so largely for financial reasons. Forces that are supplied are often of poor quality and badly equipped, but since the UN is dealing with a sovereign state and since it has great difficulty in recruiting forces for peacekeeping operations in the first place, it is rarely able to hold the providing states to account."
Some countries, including even members of the Security Council of the United Nations such as China, make little or no contribution to UN peacekeeping. China, which, after all, has approximately a quarter of the world's population, has just one—yes, one—troop person committed to UN peacekeeping, although I am not sure where he or she is.
There is little point in the international community getting food aid to Afghanistan or other countries if we cannot be confident that it will be distributed for want of security. As the Select Committee observed,
"secondary distribution has been inadequate because of the lack of security over large parts of Afghanistan. The collapse of the Taleban did not bring the safe humanitarian space which had been hoped for. It often substitutes one security concern for another."
It was that concern about the potential failure of secondary distribution that caused us to observe:
"We believe that food should not be counted as distributed until NGOs and local partners contracted to carry out the distribution have confirmed that the food has been distributed."

319WH
If sustained food security is symbiotic with conflict resolution, when the World Bank's reconstruction paper claims that
"the time is right to prepare for Afghanistan's post-conflict reconstruction"
and that
"political development, humanitarian relief and reconstruction are likely to overlap",
enhanced security will surely be the ratchet for successful reconstruction.
The international community must collectively give such issues urgent thought. For example, when is it right for the international community to intervene in the affairs of member states? In Freetown, the Prime Minister said that there was
"a strong sense of will in the international community that Sierra Leone was not going to be allowed to descend into chaos and conflict, but had to be rescued and helped for the future."
Is there now a principle of international law that, having regard to factors such as levels of conflict and violence that are sometimes aggravated by natural disasters such as floods, a country can effectively be deemed to be a failed state, and the United Nations is entitled to intervene in whatever way it feels appropriate to rescue the people of that country? If there is to be such a definition in international law, the international community must will the UN the means to ensure security in the countries concerned. That means far more countries being willing to commit peacekeeping forces more generally and readily to the UN Secretary-General.
Incidentally, I do not believe that there is any role for mercenaries in UN peacekeeping, as was suggested in the Foreign Secretary's Green Paper. For example, Frederick Forsyth observed of the mercenaries involved in the Biafra conflict that
"most of them were little more than thugs in uniform".
The Foreign Secretary's suggestion that
"A strong and reputable private military sector might have a role in enabling the UN to respond more rapidly and more effectively in a crisis"
is a complete non-starter. Other hon. Members may have a different view.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comment by the distinguished journalist and novelist Frederick Forsyth is based on a great deal more understanding of the sharp end of conflicts than the rather banal and jejune views expressed by the Foreign Secretary, and that we should listen carefully to that distinguished Reuters correspondent, who has witnessed what happens in such places?
Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes his own point.
This is not intended to be a partisan comment, but I genuinely do not understand the purpose of the Foreign Secretary's Green Paper. I do not suggest, and I would be surprised if any hon. Member were to do so, that the lack of international security and peacekeepers could be met by the UN employing mercenaries. I make that point for the avoidance of doubt. To whom would such troops be accountable? Surely, armed forces should have a direct line of command and be subject to political
320WH
control. Ultimately, when a national Government guarantee a country's security, they must also recruit and maintain that country's armed forces. In the long term, to delegate that function is to abdicate an essential responsibility of government as a concept.
The murder of the Afghan Cabinet Minister has been rightly interpreted as a political murder and a treachery against the Afghan Government. It was, however, also treachery against the Afghan people. That clearly raises concerns about the unity of the Government and the country as a whole. One day, however, they will need to rely on the security provided by a homogeneous armed force—an Afghan force, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby observed. Only then will reconstruction flourish and Afghan civil society start to gel.
More countries must be willing to commit peacekeeping forces more generally and more readily to the UN Secretary-General at a time when the most powerful country in the world, the United States, is preparing to redefine its international relationships and to focus on hostile countries, which it believes pose an immediate threat to its national security, sponsor terrorism and develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Its concern is not primarily failing or failed states, but regimes or countries that it sees as a threat. The projection of US military power alone will not, however, ensure global security. The lesson of 11 September is surely that the world welcomes United States leadership and commitment, but that it must be exercised in partnership. There is a need for international co-operation on an unprecedented scale. The coalition would not have achieved what it did in Afghanistan had it not been for the constructive support and co-operation of President Musharraf and the Government of Pakistan.
Recent events have surely demonstrated the interconnectedness of our world and perhaps reinforced the clear correlation between countries in which United Nations and NGO workers are attacked and those that we deem a security threat to ourselves. I alluded earlier to one such country, Sierra Leone, where the sale of diamonds is inextricably linked to conflict. Opium is to Afghanistan what diamonds are to Sierra Leone, and farmers grow poppies because they offer the prospect of being the most profitable crop. Those poppies are almost certainly the source of the opium that becomes the heroin that is conveyed across Asia to the street corners of Europe, where it will threaten our children.
The world must reflect on the fact that its interdependence makes us all dependent on the resolution of conflicts. The world does not want, at worst, ever-increasing armies of mercenaries or, at best, the United States using its military power to intervene only when it feels threatened. The world needs a strong United Nations, with member states that are willing to commit the necessary means to the Secretary-General. Otherwise, the world will simply stumble from crisis to crisis.
Mr. Andrew Love: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the United States. Does he agree that US targeting of Iran will very likely have a significant impact on the future of Afghanistan?
Tony Baldry: I was fortunate enough to visit Iran two years ago, and it was clear that many people were

321WH
desperately trying to modernise the country. I am not sure that describing Iran as part of an "axis of evil" will help the modernisers; indeed, it will reinforce the position of the hardliners. The point that I am trying to make is that we must think about failing and failed states, not simply about countries that we feel are a security threat. That is a personal view, and colleagues may take a different view. The world must, however, accept its interconnectedness, and we must ensure that the United Nations has the means and the will to act.
We must also recognise that electorates in countries such as the UK will become increasingly weary of committing troops and taking on what increasingly seems to be an unreasonable burden of peacekeeping duties. I have not checked the figures, but I suspect that few other countries have committed proportionally as many troops to UN peacekeeping operations as we have. That raises considerable concerns about overstretch.
Norman Lamb: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of trying to persuade other countries to join in the peacekeeping operation. I also accept how overstretched this country could become and may already be. Given the possibility that Turkey will not assume its proposed responsibilities at the end of our period of peacekeeping, does the hon. Gentleman think that the British Government should maintain their peacekeeping operation in Kabul and Afghanistan beyond that date?
Tony Baldry: I suspect that the UK Government will have little choice other than to stay in Kabul. The question is, for how long? It would be a great tragedy if the international security assistance force were to be withdrawn now. It looks as though we shall have to stay there for the foreseeable future, at least until the UN Secretary-General can find another country that is willing to accept the burden, but it is an unreasonable burden for the UK to bear alone. The Prime Minister was right to decline when the President of Afghanistan asked for more forces. We are already doing more than play our role in UN peacekeeping around the world.
I hope that the Select Committee report paid sufficient tribute to those who are working for UN agencies and NGOs in Afghanistan, because we have been impressed by their professionalism and commitment. We have also been grateful to them for the evidence that they have given us and for updating us, even as recently as last Tuesday. Frequent tribute has been paid, both by witnesses giving evidence to the Select Committee and by those whom we met in Pakistan, to the Department for International Development and the UK Government, who have often been first to come up with funds and have frequently been first on the scene. However, we should never underestimate the cost of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Somewhat worryingly, when the Select Committee was in Brussels talking to EU commissioners and officials, it was made clear to us that, in order to meet the EU contribution to the Afghanistan reconstruction programme, every single metaphorical cupboard had been stripped bare and the EU had no further funds for
322WH
any other Afghan-type humanitarian disaster. I do not want to spend time now discussing the priorities of EU aid—that will be included in our forthcoming report—
Mr. Robathan: And the Moroccan fisheries.
Tony Baldry: Indeed. As my hon. Friend says, one of the budgets raided was that which provided support for Moroccan fisheries. I am unsure why the EU requires a Moroccan fisheries support programme but, again, we shall return to that in our next report.
The Commission made it clear that it simply had no further funds for any subsequent Afghan-type crisis. We can never underestimate the long-term costs of failed states, and we must give more thought to what we can do to help failing and failed states. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) are shortly going to Sudan, a country that has been in conflict for almost 40 years.
The Select Committee is committed to undertaking a further inquiry into the reconstruction needs of Afghanistan, so I am sure that we shall return to this issue time and time again during the lifetime of this Parliament. Likewise, we shall have to return to the issue of peacekeeping in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, especially to consider who authorises and pays the peacekeepers, and to whom the peacekeepers are accountable. I suspect that the House will have to return to the whole question of security in Afghanistan and the need for security to guarantee humanitarian food distribution.
2.58 Pm
Ann Clwyd: Mr. Chidgey, you will notice that I am forgoing the annual debate on Welsh affairs in the Chamber. Tomorrow is St. David's day, which is why I am sporting a daffodil. If I leave shortly after speaking to hear our new by-election winner make his maiden speech, I am sure that hon. Members will understand.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), has already raised many of the points on which the Committee agreed. Our interest in Afghanistan will be ongoing. We went to Pakistan, as hon. Members know, in November. We hoped to enter Afghanistan, but it was not a convenient time at which to do so. We were, however, able to talk to a large number of people who were going to and from that country and to get a good idea of the problems that they faced.
I want to deal with two issues. First, I want to lend support to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for the deployment of more troops to strengthen security in the country. Secondly, I want to talk about the treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects in detention in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay. I have bored many of my hon. Friends on that issue during the past few months, but I feel strongly about it, and a lot of confusion remains. We still do not have some of the answers, and the status of the prisoners is very unsatisfactory.
Mr. Hawkins: It may not be directly germane to the main purpose of the debate, but it might be helpful if

323WH
I mention something that relates to prisoners from Afghanistan. The hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) and I met several US Congressmen at the end of last week, two of whom had been to Guantanamo Bay to see the prisoners there. If the hon. Lady were to talk to her hon. Friends and hear about our conversations with those Congressmen, she would be much reassured by their observations.
Ann Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am aware that that visit took place, but I am not reassured by the Congressmen's remarks. They have been afforded an opportunity that British Members of Parliament have not. Five British prisoners, who are constituents of some of my hon. Friends are involved. If US Congressmen have been given the opportunity to go to Guantanamo Bay, Members of Parliament should also have been given that opportunity.
I think that we are agreed that the civilian population of Afghanistan has been plagued by war, destabilisation, economic ruin and extreme repression. Unfortunately, addressing the needs of Afghans has not, up to now, been high on the international agenda. We must seize the opportunity to remedy an oversight. The people of Afghanistan must be given adequate assistance to rebuild their shattered lives.
I applaud the initial steps taken by the international community in rebuilding the country and the measures taken by international aid agencies to avert the humanitarian catastrophe that was undoubtedly looming last year. The British Government were one of the first—if not the first—to ensure that their pledge was translated into hard cash, as some of the NGOs to whom we spoke earlier this week pointed out. That cash has been put into programmes on the ground.
The international aid community must be commended for the action that it took to ensure that the predicted mass starvation did not become a reality. That action was taken in circumstances that were difficult and threatening for all those involved; there was often great personal risk both to local staff who stayed behind to assist their fellow countrymen and women, and to those who came in from the outside. As the Select Committee Chairman said, we saw at first hand the commitment of such staff when we visited the World Food Programme depot near Peshawar during our November fact-finding mission.
Everybody recognises that further effort is needed to ensure that the programmes meet the immediate needs of those whose distress is most acute. We have stressed that from the beginning. We must help those whose status in society is most marginalized—children, war widows, the disabled and other women who have, for various reasons, to fend for themselves. The demands of powerful warlords cannot be allowed to drown out the pleas and needs of the dispossessed.
Mr. Robathan: I want to build on the comments of the hon. Lady—my Select Committee colleague—about local people employed by non-governmental organisations that stay behind. The HALO Trust, with which I am involved, has 1,200 employees in Afghanistan. It managed to hide all its equipment and keep its staff on. As a result and notwithstanding the bad
324WH
weather—weather obviously plays a part—it was able to start clearing mines in Afghanistan straight away, and I understand that it is still doing so.
Ann Clwyd: I gladly pay tribute to the work of those involved in mine clearance. It is unfortunate that they now have even more mines to clear than they had before the war started. It is important to clear the land, so that people who work mainly in agriculture can return and work that land. We all agree on that.
As our Select Committee Chairman said, stability is important. The current situation is characterised by the absence of a national armed force or of central command over armed elements. That is of some concern, as is the fact that there is not yet a programme for disarmament or demobilisation. The prevalence of weaponry in individual hands must be a priority for the international community. As we know, the Afghan President has called for Afghans to
"end the culture of the knife and the gun".
Many people in Afghanistan—civilians, aid workers and members of the interim Administration—are concerned about the deterioration in security. Elizabeth Winter, who came to talk to the Select Committee earlier in the week, conveyed the strength of feeling of ordinary Afghans that the presence of more troops in the country is a priority. It would reassure them and act as a deterrent. The British Government have taken the right steps in leading the international security assistance force, but that force must be extended to the rest of the country, or at least to those areas in which unrest continues.
Without security in the country, all reconstruction efforts may be ultimately doomed to failure. We can consider examples from recent events. On 7 February, The Washington Times stated that the Central Intelligence Agency had paid $7 million to 35 Afghan warlords to switch sides—basically, to ditch the Taliban—at $200,000 apiece. It is tragic that apparently we still have to purchase peace. We talked to Afghans in camps in Pakistan and what they most yearn for is peace. They need to be sure that peace has been established before they go back to Afghanistan.
It must also be remembered that the previous lawlessness and anarchy opened the door to the Taliban in the first place, and then to the international menace of the al-Qaeda insurgents. Securing peace in Afghanistan must be a worthwhile investment for every one of us, as the world would also be much more secure. As I have heard the Prime Minister argue, we must be at the forefront of the extension of the security forces. We must do that as soon as possible.
We have all been given cause for concern by an armed attack on 16 February, again by unidentified gunmen, on the ISAF post at Kabul. The most significant event in that week of violence was the tragic murder on 14 February of Afghanistan's new Minister for transport and tourism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made a sensible comment about the axis of evil. The Interim Afghan Administration have not repeated those allegations, realising that belligerence between Tehran and Washington cannot augur well for the stability of Afghanistan.

325WH
The fate of the Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners continues to concern me. Theirs is not necessarily a popular cause. I know that from my postbag—particularly from the large number of e-mails that I have received from the United States. I have also received many letters, some pleasant, some not so pleasant. My opponents have stated, often forcefully and in colourful language, that the men being held are getting their just desserts, that, if anything, their treatment is too good and that I should get the same kind of treatment.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Lady agree that the difficulty is that we do not know what the men are being held for and that there appears to be no evidence that they are being held justly? Will she comment on that?
Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to do so. The treatment of those men raises a number of important issues that need to be addressed urgently. Like most people, I was horrified by the events of 11 September and I supported military action in Afghanistan to end the training of al-Qaeda operatives in camps. The fall of the Taliban regime, which had actively supported the activities of al-Qaeda as well as terrorising its own population, might have been unintended but it was certainly a welcome consequence of that intervention.
However, from the beginning, my support has not been unequivocal. I have had concerns about the delivery of humanitarian assistance, the use of cluster bombs and the lack of clarity surrounding the events at Mazar-i-Sharif and during other battles. I still believe that there needs to be an inquiry into those events.
The treatment of the prisoners continues to demand considered discussion, partly because of the apparent disregard for international law, partly because of the confusion surrounding the matter and also because of the seeming lack of influence being exerted by the coalition partners on the United States Administration. The treatment of our enemies in times of conflict and afterwards must serve as a benchmark of our commitment to those civilised values for which we are prepared to take military action in the first place.
First, the conditions in the camps in which the prisoners—many of whom could be categorised as Taliban foot soldiers—are held in Afghanistan, are appalling, according to the reports that I have read and some of the evidence that we took during the week. The fact that many of those forced into the Taliban army now seem to be dying of starvation and disease is a matter that calls for action by western Governments, whether that is their official responsibility or not.
Within its current budgetary restraints, it is difficult for the Interim Afghan Authority to improve the conditions in which the Taliban prisoners are held. The families of those prisoners, and of the al-Qaeda suspects who live in Afghanistan, are extremely vulnerable. They have limited access to food or shelter and are in constant fear of retribution and persecution. It seems that those with little influence—the foot soldiers who might have joined up in the first place in order to be able to feed their families—are suffering, while the pro-Taliban warlords—those who took an active part in the conflict
326WH
over the years and who have been the real cause of both the conflict and the instability—are, as I mentioned, being paid significant sums by outside forces to switch sides yet again.
It is also doubtful that the facilities at Guantanamo bay, set up and controlled by United States forces, are in line with the requirements of the Geneva conventions or constitute humane treatment. The hooding, the shackling and the use of open-air cages does not show much of a commitment to civilised values. If British or American soldiers were being held in chain-link cages, exposed to the elements, sensorily deprived and constantly interrogated, it is almost certain that the American and British Governments would have decried that treatment as being against the Geneva conventions.
Furthermore, there has been no compelling explanation from the US Administration as to why the Geneva conventions, in so far as they relate to the determination of prisoner of war status, have not been upheld in respect of those captured in Afghanistan.
Mr. David Chidgey (in the Chair): Order. I ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks more closely to the debate on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.
Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Chidgey. I was making the point that the way in which prisoners are held in detention elsewhere may have an impact on the way people behave in Afghanistan. If we are trying to change the mindset of those people, who have been so debased by 23 years of war, we will be judged by the way in which we treat them when they are our prisoners. If we want to achieve change in Afghanistan, it is important to show that we want our values to be upheld there and in many other countries. I am trying to link the two subjects because it could have a considerable impact on the situation in Afghanistan.
Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan both preceded and followed the conflict there, which was correctly described by the American President and the Prime Minister as a war on terrorism? If it was a war, would not it be correct for the prisoners to be treated as prisoners of war?
Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. It is true that one would have expected them to have been treated as prisoners of war and I think that our Government expected that that would be the case. Indeed, when I asked that question in the Chamber on 10 January, the Secretary of Sate for Defence replied:
"I would expect all prisoners held in Afghanistan to be subject to the Geneva convention and we would expect that, ultimately, the ICRC will have access to them."—[Official Report, 10 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 695.]
It was expected that the Geneva conventions would apply to all prisoners taken during the war in Afghanistan, but we have witnessed considerable confusion as to whether those people are prisoners of war. Indeed, the argument continues. Today, the Prime Minister made a point about the situation of the prisoners. Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding about precisely what their status is.

327WH
There is a disturbing aspect as regards prisoners who were taken captive in Afghanistan: the presumption of guilt and the lack of legal representation being afforded to those being held, in contravention of international human rights law. The presumption of innocence, with the right to legal representation, should apply to all, even to those suspected of the most heinous crimes, including the worst terrorist atrocities. Some of those prisoners, whether in Afghanistan or Cuba, may be innocent of involvement in the activities of al-Qaeda or of any other terrorist activities.
Mr. Love: It cannot be right that American prisoners are afforded rights under the law in the United States, while all other prisoners seem not to be afforded any legal rights. Does my h F agree?
Ann Clwyd: Certainly. It is wrong. The lack of evidence from the American authorities against Lofti Raissi, who was recently released on bail from a British jail after being held for five months, has done little to dispel my disquiet on that point, and if the American, John Philip Walker Lindh, qualifies for protection under the American justice system, so should all the other suspects. The British Government should act to ensure that that is so.
Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Lady recognise that not only many of my constituents but also the American Congressmen, whose hosts the hon. Member for Edmonton, the hon. Member for Putney and I—among others—were, take the view that American or British people unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Taliban would not have been afforded the privileges or protection of the Geneva convention or anything like it? Does she recognise that many people in Britain and America are angry that the treatment of prisoners is being seen in a false perspective?
It must be recognised that we are trying to introduce a concept of civilised western values. We know perfectly well that our opponents in al-Qaeda and the Taliban would never have given our troops the privileges in question if they had captured them.
Ann Clwyd: The whole point is that we are trying to introduce civilised values to a country where they have not prevailed. We have always upheld the Geneva conventions and I hope that we shall continue to uphold them. It disturbs me that in the United States certain people are suggesting that the Geneva conventions are out of date and should be set aside.
Mr. David Chidgey (in the Chair): Order. I think that I have been very sympathetic in allowing the debate to stray on to the issue of prisoners of war and whether there are prisoners of war in this context. I ask the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to stick to the issue for debate, which is the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.
Ann Clwyd: You have been extremely patient, Mr. Chidgey, but the treatment of the prisoners is part of our report. We made the point early on that the treatment of those prisoners concerned us.
Mr. David Chidgey (in the chair): Order. The point has been well made and I ask the hon. Lady to move on.
Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Chidgey.
328WH
I should mention, with respect to indefinite detention without trial in Afghanistan of people captured during the Afghan war, that we have in the past criticised other countries for that practice. It would be unfortunate if we supported indefinite detention now.
Despite many written parliamentary questions, I have found it difficult to determine whether the British Government have been kept fully aware of developments in Afghanistan throughout the war. It is important that they should be kept aware of such matters. If we are fighting a war shoulder to shoulder with another country, I assume that we are partners, but where does that partnership end? Information from the US authorities has been lacking at various times and it is right for us to say that we expect to be treated as equal partners. It is important to establish that in relation to this war, as it will be in any future military action wherever that may take place. The observance of international and human rights law by our allies throughout the course of any military action that we undertake together is extremely important.
Mr. Tony Colman: Was my hon. Friend pleased to hear during our discussions with the visiting US Congressmen that they were unaware that protocols 1 and 2 of the 1977 amendment of the Geneva convention had not been ratified by the US Congress? The protocols would cover participants in Afghanistan who are not members of the armies of either country and, if they were ratified, would sort out the basis on which prisoners held in such a war could be designated prisoners of war.
Ann Clwyd: I am glad that my hon. Friend was also at the meeting with the US Congressmen. I have attended several meetings at the US embassy at which some of my hon. Friends were able to discuss the issues.
Finally, I want to speak about the repatriation of refugees. Those of us who had previously visited Pakistan were made aware of the huge numbers of refugees from Afghanistan who were in camps in Pakistan. We first met them two years ago and were able to meet them again in November. Some of those people had been in the camps for more than 20 years. The world tends to forget that refugees may stay in what is described as a temporary camp for as long as 23 years. We must remind the world that refugees do not necessarily go home after a conflict; many remain. All the people we spoke to in the camp that we visited said that they wanted to return home as soon as possible. They did not want to be beggars in another country or dependent on another country; they wanted to go home.
Obviously, as the situation in Afghanistan improves, many countries in which there are Afghan refugees are considering their repatriation. Given the security issues that must still be addressed, that repatriation, although desirable, should not be premature. The expansion of the presence and mandate of the ISAF would be a useful measure to ensure the safety of returning refugees. In addition, repatriation must be voluntary and programmes properly funded. One of the most interesting discussions that my colleagues and I held in Pakistan was with the new Minister responsible for refugees, who kept stressing that the world must remember what an enormous burden on Pakistan the refugees had been for many years and called on us to

329WH
show greater recognition of the problems. I know that the Department for International Development has already made a considerable contribution to the Government of Pakistan in recognition of that.
Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Lady agree that Iran has also taken many refugees and funded them over many years and that we should perhaps consider helping Iran in the same way?
Ann Clwyd: I agree. Over the years, I have had many occasions to visit Iran and see what people there were doing for the Kurdish refugees. Many of those refugees remain in camps in Iran after 11 or 12 years. Iran has played an enormous part in helping refugees. When Turkey shut its borders to the Kurds, Iran kept its borders open, as I have said in the House on several occasions. I agree that Iran should be assisted. The British Government will, I hope, continue to offer support in the refugee camps on the borders, where life for many people is so difficult.
The international community must continue its recent focus on the reconstruction of Afghanistan and on global security. Long-term commitment to the legitimately constructed Government in Afghanistan and to the rule of law within the country and throughout the world is required to achieve those objectives. We must be magnanimous in winning the war, which means treating people—both inside Afghanistan and elsewhere—according to the Geneva conventions.
3.30 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Chidgey, that I have already dealt with some points that I wanted to raise in my interventions on the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), so I shall not pursue them further.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Chidgey, and the Minister for understanding that, because of a commitment in my constituency—the hon. Member for Cynon Valley has to attend a Welsh affairs debate—I shall have to leave the Opposition Front Bench in the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Although I cannot be here until the end of the debate, I shall certainly read it carefully in Hansard and discuss any issues that arise.
I also apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who also speaks on international development. She would have liked to take part in the debate, particularly given her recent visit to Pakistan, but she has a commitment this afternoon in the constituency where her mother-in-law lives. I understand that her mother-in-law will be part of the audience and I am sure that Mr. Chidgey and the Minister will understand that it is a commitment that my hon. Friend would be unwise to miss.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), not only for his powerful speech today, but for his chairmanship of the Select Committee. Once again, I am sure that all hon. Members throughout the House—not just those present in the Chamber for this afternoon's debate—would want to tell my hon. Friend that we hugely respect the
330WH
work that he and other members of his Committee do. My hon. Friend had a difficult act to follow. He would agree that his predecessor as Chairman of the International Development Committee, Bowen Wells, our former hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, was also a tremendously effective parliamentarian and successful Select Committee Chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is carrying on the work of our former colleague with his usual energy. The report is a tribute not only to my hon. Friend, but to all members of the Committee.
Debates on this subject often attract considerable interest, and hon. Members from all sides of the Chamber have already intervened. As both the Minister and I had cause to observe when winding up for our respective parties in the recent debate on the International Development Bill, the House is often at its best when debating serious subjects such as international development.
The UK has a proud record of support for countries in need around the world. The Minister recognises that MPs of all parties care deeply about the preservation and continuation of the UK's reputation. Other hon. Members as well as myself have already referred to the visit by United States Congressmen to the NATO committee during our recent short recess. Several Congressmen told me afterwards how much they appreciated the Minister giving up his time to welcome them in the Lord Chancellor's private chambers in the Palace of Westminster. He not only entertained the Congressmen with his American family links and his support for the Cincinnati Reds, but he made some powerful comments about the views of the current Secretary of State for International Development on the continuing process from Doha. The Congressmen listened carefully to those views, and greatly appreciated them. The Minister may find it difficult to believe, but no less a person than Lord Lamont paid public tribute to him in a later meeting with the Congressmen, which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) will confirm. I do not know if the Minister will be embarrassed that someone whose political views are so different from his and those of his distinguished father should have publicly paid tribute to him. That may be the first time that that has happened to the Minister, but it shows how carefully everyone listened to everything that he said about Doha and international development issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has already discussed some of the most important issues with regard to Afghanistan and the Select Committee's report. However, I want to speak about two or three matters that concern me, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Opposition Front Benchers. I also want to consider issues that arise from the Government's helpful and thorough response to the Committee's excellent recommendations.
I strongly agree with the Select Committee's recommendation (b):
"The UK is one of a small number of donors with a good record of turning promises quickly into cash."
The Minister and I have said before that so often what recipient countries and NGOs in those countries most need is quick cash, not promises. Throughout her adult life, my mother has been involved with several charities

331WH
such as the Children's Society and, as a former member of a diocesan synod, with Church of England charities and their work overseas. She has constantly stressed in all her work the need for any aid to be given quickly and in cash. Promises and words are cheap, but cash is often important in failed states and needy countries. Recommendation (b) also states:
"We encourage DFID to work with those donor countries which also responded rapidly to encourage other donors to ensure that their pledges are converted into real commitments and actual money."
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden recently worked with the charity Islamic Relief on raising money for ambulances for Afghanistan where they are badly needed. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome and support that work. A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend and I watched the launch of the appeal in New Palace Yard with other colleagues. It was heartwarming to see that Islamic Relief could secure an instant donation so that the first ambulance could go immediately to Afghanistan. That is real action, and the sort of thing that reputable charities and people in the UK can deliver, and deliver quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly stressed recommendation (k), which concluded:
"We remain to be convinced that the food delivered into Afghanistan can be distributed to all those in need, primarily because of poor security".
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has detailed knowledge of the security issues. Security is crucial after an armed conflict. There is also the problem of weather conditions, although happily on this occasion one feels that a higher power may have had something to do with it. When the humanitarian crisis was first reported in the news media, it was feared that food aid would not get through once the snows came, but, fortunately for the people, winter came late to Afghanistan this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has been to the Afghan border with Pakistan and the contacts she made there have recently been in touch with her. My hon. Friend commented:
"So what is the situation like in Afghanistan now? Is the much-vaunted reconstruction programme taking place? The International Development Select Committee was briefed by NGOs involved in the area. Let us start with the good news, the Taliban was defeated relatively quickly. Winter came very late this year so food aid reached many of the places where it was so urgently needed. Aid agencies are hoping to restart many of their long-term programmes in the new few months and international troops are trying to maintain stability, especially in the cities. The prospects for women are now much brighter…refugee Afghan women are returning from Iran fired up by the greater freedom they experienced in that country."
She continued:
"The new Interim Authority and its leader Hamid Kharzai, is struggling to retain power over these warring ethnic groups."
On the downside, my hon. Friend said that, sadly, ethnic tensions have flared up again. The new Afghan Minister for tourism has been murdered, a matter to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred. My hon. Friend went on:
"Hamid Kharzai is canvassing the world for support to enable the much-needed reconstruction and reforms to go through…There are also worrying reports of new poppy crops being planted. Local farmers say that they need financial incentives to stop
332WH
growing them. Poppies grow on poor land, don't need much water and have a financial yield per hectare of 10 times that of other crops."
That is unfortunate for the international community and for our constituents who may suffer from the scourge of drugs.
Speaking with my other hat on as shadow Minister for drugs and security, I am confident of the Minister's support when I say that all parliamentarians must address the difficult issue of financial incentives for people in countries such as Afghanistan to turn from the cultivation of drugs and destructive, rather than constructive, crops.
The United States has promised $300 million in aid. Hon. Members who are quick to criticise that country must recognise that it is far and away the biggest donor of aid in the world. There is a delicate balance between what is practical and what one would love to have in an ideal world. Now that the snow has come to Afghanistan, some remote areas in the central highlands are so cut off that the NGOs report that people are trying to live on boiled grass in order to survive. Three million people still have to live in camps outside Afghanistan and, according to Human Rights Watch, many people are too frightened to return home because of the fear of violence.
Even though the direct conflict may have finished, more people may leave Afghanistan because of a lack of food and water, never mind the fear of ethnic violence. There is bound to be more tension in the surrounding countries, which cannot cope with the numbers of refugees there already. As the hon. Member for Putney will confirm, the US Congressmen—there were 10 Republicans and five Democrats, all of whom had a special interest in NATO—who had an international outlook, were at pains to stress that one of the countries that will need the most support from the developed west in the next few years is Pakistan, because of the stress and strains imposed on it by the conflict in Afghanistan. There is a great danger of extremist parties threatening the stability of Pakistan. After the successful resolution of the destruction of the Taliban and the dismantling of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, which we hope will be maintained, the last thing we want is to see a Muslim extremist party come to power in Pakistan. That should concern us all.
The UN mine action programme in Afghanistan seeks to get rid of 25,000 land mines. My hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Blaby referred to that. When one turns on one's television, as I did early this morning, it is heartwarming to see that one of the first things that is being reported is the valiant work of the Army and the RAF in mine clearance in Afghanistan. I am sure that many hon. Members saw those film reports this morning.
I have a particular constituency interest. The Royal Logistic Corps has its headquarters in my constituency and many of the people who work for it are based at the mine clearance headquarters in Minley just outside my constituency in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). Those people are at the sharp end. They are involved in mine clearance, as are the RAF's mine clearance officers and the men we saw on television this morning. The British forces can make a substantial contribution because of our experience of mine clearance.

333WH
Happily for the future of Afghanistan, there is speculation that recent rains might mean an end to the previous three years of drought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden stressed, we hope that those rains will symbolise a new beginning. In one of the twists of irony that so often occur through history, the atrocity of 11 September may turn out to be a chance for change for countries like Afghanistan, and for progress in that area of the world. The developed west must not let that opportunity pass by.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby pointed out, security needs to extend to the secondary distribution food network as well as to the supply route into Afghanistan. That was recommendation (s) in the Select Committee report. Delivering food into the country is not enough. It must be distributed too. The Select Committee has put many thoughts to the Department for International Development and I shall read carefully what the Minister has to say to supplement his Department's thorough response to the report. We recognise that we cannot ask for the moon. It is incredibly difficult for even a combination of developed western countries to provide complete security after a war. Nevertheless, we hope that with good will there will be an opportunity for greater security for the delivery of food and other aid.
Norman Lamb: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether, given his emphasis on the importance of security, he supports the current British deployment of peacekeeping troops? Does he see a case for extending it beyond Kabul, which has significant implications on numbers? As I asked the hon. Member for Banbury, what does he think the British Government should do if the Turkish Government do not introduce their peacekeeping forces?
Mr. Hawkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Conservative Front Bench has always supported the deployment of British troops. The Minister will confirm that there has been cross-party agreement on that. We recognise that it was vital to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in our response to the atrocity of 11 September. One of the things that has concerned Labour and Conservative Members, both Front and Back Bench, has been the difference of opinion so vividly exhibited in the latter stages of the debate on the International Development Bill by different Liberal Democrat spokesmen. There has been strong support for the United States of America from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) gave the Minister, me and other hon. Members a 20-minute anti-American rant. In talking about what should happen on the deployment of British troops, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) should bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said about overstretch.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
334WH
On further deployment, we need to bear in mind not only what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said about overstretch, but the delicate balance of the deployment of other forces. We want the international community to stand together, but before we start putting out soundbites about countries such as Turkey, we must bear in mind that it is unwise for a Government or a responsible and loyal Opposition to pre-judge the issues, which are delicate. There are many implications for Turkey as a NATO member and for fellow NATO members, and there are all sorts of delicacies involved in, for example, the deployment of Turkish troops in Cyprus and the application of Greek Cyprus for accession to the EU. The hon. Member for North Norfolk is new to the House and I warn him to be careful before making statements about Turkey's involvement.
Dr. Tonge: I just wanted to point out to the hon. Gentleman that my "rant" lasted only two minutes, my entire speech lasting only 15 minutes.
Mr. Hawkins: All I can say to the hon. Lady is that it sounded like 20 to me. However, I am glad that she accepts that it was a rant. As I said, it did her and her party no credit.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On subsequent deployments, does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the United Kingdom is one of the few NATO states other than America that has been ready to come forward rapidly when fighting has to be done, we should look to other European NATO states, which might for very good reason—
Mr. David Chidgey (in the chair): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, not the deployment of troops around the world.
Dr. Lewis: May I complete my point, Mr. Chidgey, to show its relevance?
Mr. David Chidgey (in the chair): I advise the hon. Gentleman to choose his words carefully.
Dr. Lewis: Choosing my words extremely carefully, we should look to other countries to supply troops in supporting humanitarian relief operations over a longer period. I hope that that point is relevant.
Mr. Hawkins: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East for his skill in choosing his words carefully. I agree with him. It is in the interests of the western world for the developed world to work together, through organisations such as NATO, in difficult international circumstances. That is how we can operate effectively.
You kindly called me early in the debate, Mr. Chidgey, and I want to allow other hon. Members plenty of opportunity to contribute. It has been a worthwhile debate on a significant report. Few issues are more important to the world than the future of Afghanistan and we will all be judged by the response of the west to that issue. I am sure that the Minister, whose remarks I shall read carefully in Hansard, will welcome

335WH
the report as I have. I hope that the Government continue to take on board the valuable conclusions and recommendations of the International Development Committee.
3.53 pm
Tony Worthington: I shall not stray from the subject of our debate. I feel bereft: I have no mother or mother-in-law to refer to in the debate and no excuse for leaving it. None the less, having declared my inadequacy, I shall get on to the subject matter.
Hon. Members who have spoken have dwelt on the problems of Afghanistan, saying how appalling and difficult things are. However, we should pay tribute to those who have achieved so much in the months since the Select Committee report was published. When we were taking evidence, the prevailing opinion was that military activity would not work. In metaphorical terms, hundreds of journalists were complaining because the war had not been won between the breakfast news and "News at Ten". However, the steadfastness of the alliance paid off in a remarkable way. Others said that, even if we won the war, Afghanistan was a basket case that could not be helped and that, faced with the scale of the problems, we would simply flee the area. We are not doing that. I pay tribute to those who proved that viewpoint wrong. Obviously, that includes the alliance, within which the British Government played an important role by providing military support and through the assistance provided by the Department for International Development.
I pay particular tribute to the United Nations, its Secretary-General and the rest of the UN family for their superb contribution. Organisations such as the World Food Programme, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Ironically, UNICEF managed to immunise more children against measles in the past few months than we did in this country. There have been remarkable achievements by agencies that the Committee has strongly criticised in the past. Their performance on this occasion was superb.
Above all, I want to praise Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Afghanistan, who picked up the pieces after the war and led that country's leaders to an agreement in Bonn. He led the way to the creation of the international security assistance force and an Interim Administration under Mr. Karzai, and then went on to a relatively successful donors' conference in Tokyo.
Given the problems that confronted us in September and October, to have reached this position is a remarkable achievement. I pay tribute to the part played by DFID. Whomever one speaks to is full of praise for what the Department has done. We promised that Afghanistan would not be forgotten, and Mr. Brahimi and his team have provided a framework within which we can be held to that promise. If we are looking for the next winner of the Nobel peace prize, we need look no further than Mr. Brahimi, especially when we take into account the Brahimi report on UN peacekeeping operations. For one man to have achieved so much in a relatively short time is remarkable.
336WH
I shall now consider some of the points that arise from the Select Committee report and the current situation. Other hon. Members mentioned security and military involvement. We say that our involvement is to last until only the end of April and then we shall hand over to the Turks. I see the desirability of that from the viewpoint of reassuring the British public, but I also see a great clash with the need successfully to complete the mission. That pattern of short-term involvement follows what we said about Sierra Leone, where an initially non-feasible commitment of 30 days has been followed by an unfinished but highly successful long-term commitment.
In Afghanistan, two medium-term missions should be developed. First, the mission of ISAF must be enlarged beyond Kabul. It is not credible for it simply to stay in Kabul and its surrounds and not to extend the mission to the rest of the country.
Secondly, as in Sierra Leone, there is a need to train a national army, and we are likely to be asked to play a part. The parallels with Sierra Leone are interesting, but we should not push them too far. Hon. Members have talked about the need for disarmament, following the parallel of Sierra Leone. However, many people in Afghanistan are not seen as equivalent to the forces of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone; some Afghani forces are seen as heroic figures, who played their part in resisting the Russians for many years, for example. It would be naive simply to say that they must disarm. We must concentrate on ensuring that those armed men are provided with an alternative lifestyle, through farming or other productive work, so that they are not dependent on the warlords for their sustenance, or on the proceeds of poppies—and so that they do not return to ethnic conflict.
I turn to the relationship between international agencies and the Afghani Administration. That country does not have functioning ministries. Aid and development must be understood in terms of the construction of a state. Obviously, food aid is crucially important, but many other kinds of aid should also be provided.
The initial programme for Afghanistan states that senior officials of the Interim Authority have been briefed and consulted to as great an extent as possible, and Mr. Brahimi has expressed his support for the concept that the United Nations' presence in the country should be akin to a small footprint—that it must be seen to be small, and that much of the leadership must be provided by Afghans themselves, so that as few expatriates as possible are involved.
That is a noble goal, but we must think the matter through, because some of the tasks that need to be done are so great that they require immediate action. For example, 1.5 million children must return to school by 31 March, and a lot of outside assistance will be needed if that is to be achieved. It is also important that, in many circumstances, development money is used to provide Afghanis with a legitimate income.
However, there is great tension between the need to do things quickly and the need to organise things from the bottom up. I offer an example. The fertile areas and their water systems have been destroyed during the war, as a result of a scorched-earth policy. It would be highly desirable if Afghanistan could feed itself: 85 per cent. of

337WH
the population are wholly or partially dependent on agriculture, and those people must be kept away from poppy growing, as several hon. Members have said. However, in rural areas, only 19 per cent. of people have access to clean, safe water. It is estimated that Afghanistan needs 80,000 to 100,000 new wells. That is a staggering figure, and the task cannot be achieved simply by saying, "This must be Afghan led and dug"—although Afghan labour will be needed. It is a staggering logistical task, but it must be achieved if Afghanistan is to start, once again, to produce its own food. If the Afghan people start growing food again, big steps forward can be taken.
Another area of concern is the fact that only 7 per cent. of the country is linked to electricity, and that is said to be the lowest per capita figure in the world. Afghanistan has never had a national grid, and there is a great dependence on electricity imports. Most people's concepts of aid focus on helping with the provision of food, education, health and so forth, but do not include addressing such problems as the electricity infrastructure. However, if Afghanistan is to succeed as a country, and if its people are to experience a rapid improvement in their lives, the technology of the developed world must be swiftly employed in accordance with national priorities. That would help to produce a real peace dividend.
In such circumstances, it is inevitable that western companies will queue up to secure contracts in a way that appears to be similar to the tied aid that we are against. I want to hear the Minister's views about the tension between the need for the rapid improvement that can be achieved only with our technology and the need for Afghan-led work.
Dr. Tonge: This may be a mischievous point, but does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Commonwealth Development Corporation might step in and fund some projects?
Tony Worthington: That is a mischievous point. Of course I do. The CDC, like other organisations, should consider the contribution that it can make. However, I do not want to be dragged down that side road. I would rather stick to what I want to say than consider what the hon. Lady might say if she catches your eye, Mr. Chidgey.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me about the importance of reproductive health services in Afghanistan. The issues that most appalled people when they heard about life in Afghanistan were the number of women who die in childbirth and the number of children who die in the first year of their lives. To have 16,000 women a year dying in childbirth at this point in time is shameful, and an infant mortality rate of 165 per 1,000 is unforgivable. It is extremely important to draw attention to the issue of women's health and the health of young children.
I emphasise what other hon. Members said about the need for our approach to be viewed in a regional context. We must consider the impact on Pakistan and Iran, and their contribution. It is absolutely crucial that neighbours such as Iran and Pakistan are kept on side so that they do not promote their own sides in Afghanistan as they have done in the past.
338WH
Like other hon. Members, I should like to comment on the utter folly of the United States describing Iran as part of the "axis of evil". Iran had been on side with the coalition and had contributed to it. It had looked after 1.5 million refugees; it attended the Tokyo conference; and it became a major donor. Then, when we had all made our contribution to bringing Iran back into the family of nations, along came George W. Bush to undermine all that. I hope that we can recover the situation, but he does make things difficult at times.
Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman refers to security in the region as a whole. What thought has he given to the countries that seem increasingly to be known as the "stans" and their need for support? One non-governmental organisation suggested that there had been a period of demodernisation in the past decade or so in those countries. There is clearly a growing extreme Islamic threat in those countries and problems with drugs.
Tony Worthington: I very much welcome that intervention. For several years I have bored the hon. Members who share with me the privilege of serving on the Select Committee with comments about the importance of central and eastern Europe, which includes the "stans". Although substantial European and British assistance goes to the area, if there are places on earth that are least known to the British public, it is those that we have been talking about. We should have an early investigation into those areas so that we know more about them.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too hot under the collar about Iran, does he not accept that that country has an appalling record of support for organisations, such as Islamic Jihad? Only recently it rejected the proposed British ambassador because it falsely alleges that he is Jewish. He is not, but the fact that Iran chooses to reject him on those grounds shows that there is still something seriously amiss in that country.
Tony Worthington: I have never spoken a word in my life that suggests that Iran is a wonderful and idyllic place whose human rights record needs praising. I merely suggest that, when we have made substantial progress in a very difficult situation, it is folly for us basically to kick in the teeth the progressives in Iran who are seeking to move the country forward. I was not getting hot under the collar, but pointing out what was a foolish move. Almost everyone who observed it was appalled that Iraq and Iran were linked in the way that they were.
Another difficulty is that much aid money has to go into work that does not match our expectations of aid. If one asked the British public what they see as aid, they would probably say humanitarian aid for food and basic health and education services. However, for the system to work, we must pay the salaries of the civil servants and police who have been unpaid for months. If we do not, the whole edifice may be brought down without the pit props of police, civil service, judges and other key elements of the modern state. I am therefore pleased that a trust fund has been established to meet the initial recurrent costs of establishing ministries, including the

339WH
salary and equipment costs. The justice system, the security system, the civil service and planning and aid co-ordination are crucial to success.
We could focus on many other matters. Many people have mentioned the need to improve the security situation, and I fully agree. What the world must face up to is that the issue is not about troops, but about good troops. For example in Bosnia, although 2 million troops were being trained in Europe, we could not scrape together a few tens of thousands adequate for the purpose there.
I have visited countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone where the peacekeepers became part of the problem rather than the solution to it. It is no use sending troops who are not paid, or who, as I saw in Liberia, regard it as part of their job to loot the country as part of their reward for bringing peace to it. The sending of people who have not been trained and who do not know the skills involved in what the international security assistance force is doing is a major issue. I suspect that our troops will be there for a considerable length of time, I hope, doing work such as that they have successfully done in Sierra Leone. In effect, they will be a training a new Afghan national army and I cannot think of any troops better than ours to do that.
In conclusion, if any of us had said in November that we would now be as far ahead as we are, we would have been dismissed as starry-eyed idealists who ought to be locked up for our own safety. What we have done so far is to achieve one small miracle. We must now move on to the bigger miracles. I hope that the Committee's work and report will help us to do that. We must maintain our interest in the area.
4.13 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: As the visit of the United States Congressmen has been mentioned, it perhaps behoves me to put a different slant on it. I refer to recommendation (e) in our report and to the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. The discussions that we had last weekend were held behind closed doors and off the record, and were frank and open in terms of each side understanding the other's point of view. Many similar points of view have been expressed in this debate.
It is important to reflect that the United States does not have an equivalent to the International Development Committee. We met representatives from its Committee on International Relations, and several Congressmen welcomed the speech that my hon. Friend the Minister gave. Much of the information that he provided was new. There is a view in the United States that the aid budget is about 20 per cent. of GDP; in fact, it is 0.1 per cent. of GDP. That astonishing fact surprised many Congressmen.
I add to the praise from all hon. Members for the tremendous work that the Americans have done to bring humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and the surrounding regions. It is important to recognise that while realising that work is in progress on both sides; they are trying to understand one other and work together. Many countries, but particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, have created a remarkable coalition. I welcome that, but it is important to reflect that we still have much to learn from each other.
340WH
I shall briefly address the Select Committee's report and the future. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) in saying that we have seen a success a story. It is important that constituents who pay their taxes—which are spent by the Department for International Development, aid agencies, the EU and the UN—recognise that a job has been well done even though it is still in progress.
When we visited the area, we saw how UNHCR and the World Food Programme worked. Their work was fully funded. I particularly pay tribute to the work of Catherine Bettini, the chief executive of the World Food Programme, and the marvellous teams of Afghan lorry drivers who kept the aid flowing into Afghanistan for months. I took pride in seeing a list on a board in her office displaying how much each country had contributed—the United Kingdom was well up there—and it included a column called "private donors." They were not multinational donors, but ordinary men, women and children of the United Kingdom who, through the United Nations Association in the United Kingdom, contributed a total of £72,000 with their pennies and pounds. I witnessed that in Putney, and pay tribute to Jo Stocks, the secretary of the Putney UNA, and to the other members, including Ade and Walt Hain, for their work in raising funds for humanitarian aid. This month, a further £18,000 is going over from the people of Britain. I stress that because, as usual, the UNA in the UK has done good by stealth.
Our report commented on the money in the form of cash that went to the World Food Programme. It was important that the programme could buy food and products that were needed locally in Afghanistan. There was a good harvest in Pakistan last year so cash was important; DFID aid was also given as cash. Aid from the United States, however, was largely in kind, such as food. In the report, we were critical of the fact that food had been expensively trucked around the world. Although I understand that it is good to distribute food surpluses from the United States to places where there is need for them, it is also important to look forward and examine how there could be a rebalancing of the amount given in kind and cash by all the countries contributing to the success of the World Food Programme.
The organisation of the effort was impressive. It was the first operation of its type and lessons had been learned from Rwanda and Bosnia. The operation was taken forward in an extremely good way. The UN handled taking food aid into Afghanistan, where there were local contractors who were often in UK or European-badged non-governmental organisations. I put it like that because 138 of the 140 people working for Oxfam in Afghanistan were Afghanis, and many other NGOs made similar arrangements.
It was important that a viable civil society could be contacted by the UN to deliver aid locally. I am pleased to say that many of the dire warnings given by expatriate representatives of the NGOs were not fulfilled. I do not blame those expatriate members of NGOs because they had lost contact with what was happening inside Afghanistan. It is important that we recognise the tremendous work that has been done by the Afghan NGOs.

341WH
My second point, which has been made by other hon. Members, concerns the support from countries in the surrounding regions. We have already mentioned Iran, but I shall discuss Pakistan in particular. Both countries have had refugee camps for the 22 years since 1979. There are 3 million refugees in Pakistan, where there was a crisis before 11 September. Those refugees had been forgotten by the world.
When I visited Kashmir in April 2000, I met a Voluntary Service Overseas teacher, Joan Atkinson, who told me quite movingly about the way in which women were treated in Kabul, which she had visited when it was under the control of the Taliban. Women could not access education, and she asked me to do all that I could to make sure that women's rights were dealt with in Afghanistan. I am sure that she did not believe that the dreadful events of 11 September would happen, but there has been a dramatic change since then. It is important to recognise that much of what happened could not have occurred without the help of President Musharraf and his surrounding team, who, having seen evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, gave very strong leadership in the region in supporting the coalition.
In recent days, I have received intimations that the Pakistan Government are keen for the UK to remain involved with the assistance forces in Afghanistan. That brings us back to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), in which he mentioned the importance of security. In the Minister's wind-up speech, I hope that he will be able to answer some questions that have been asked again and again. What are the plans, if any, for extending the International Security and Assistance Force beyond Kabul? What is the Government's view of the role of the Loya Jirga in the political development of Afghanistan? Will it be possible to form a properly representative Government?
That brings us to reconstruction, for which $4.5 billion has been promised for 27 million people. That is a small amount compared with the money that has been allocated to East Timor in the past two years. As hon. Members have said, what is extraordinary is that much of that money has not yet arrived.
I have received information that 30 Ministers are operating in Kabul at the moment. The majority work in buildings that are in an extremely poor state of repair. The buildings do not have windowpanes, there is little furniture and some Ministers make do with chairs that one would take on a picnic while other offices have no paper. The priority is to ensure that money is made available to the Interim Authority. The UK Government have made their contribution to the Interim Authority fund, but other Governments have not. The question is which countries have not contributed out of those who promised to do so in Tokyo. I would be particularly interested if any of them are European Union member states or the United States. It is important that the money flows now.
The money that flows through the Interim Government should utilise the Afghan NGO matrix that I have already mentioned. Elizabeth Winter—a constituent of mine in Putney—is the special adviser to
342WH
the British Agencies Afghanistan group and gave evidence on Tuesday. She said that people in Kabul were asking us to stop sending hyperactive expatriates because they have the expertise locally. She said:
"Above all make sure that the reconstruction process is led by Afghans themselves. I would recommend that we do not just pay lip-service to this, it is not good enough to say that Afghans must be in the driving seat when some people have not even allowed them in the car and with the same breath are saying there is no time to consult… Build on what is already known and has been achieved, and develop civil society."
She added:
"The diaspora, with its valuable skills, should be facilitated to return."
We all have Afghan experts in our constituencies. Last October, an Afghan water engineer came to my surgery in Roehampton library to urge me to support what the Government were doing. I told him that the best thing that he could do when peace came would be to return to Afghanistan. I hope that he is now there, starting on the huge number of boreholes referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie.
Another issue relating to reconstruction was raised last Tuesday in questions asked by the Islamic Relief spokesperson. Are we forcing people to return too soon? He was concerned about the delicate eco-structure in south Afghanistan. There is also a concern that pharmaceuticals that are unsuitable or had not been checked were being dumped. A mechanism must be set up to ensure that we are not passing on pharmaceuticals that we would not accept for our own treatment or that of our families.
Support is needed for future training and a unified curriculum, which is something that the American Congressmen were particularly keen on. I would be interested to know if the Minister could outline what support exists for that. The Islamic Relief spokesperson also raised a concern about seed verification. He did not want the seeds provided to the Afghan people to be unsuitable.
Afghanistan was once an extremely sophisticated country, and it can be again. We look forward to what will be announced by its Ministry of Planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie talked about the long-term sustainability of Afghanistan, and how it can progress: clearly, not by growing poppies. He talked about the need for the community to be able to feed itself, and restore its water channels. It is important to recognise that there is a strong entrepreneurial class in Afghanistan. It was interesting that the markets continued trading all the way through the war. Now that the electricity has been restored, we must help business to start working again. We must see what we can do by helping financial services.
There has been an attempt to block the flow of terrorist finance, which means that the way in which Islamic banking was working cannot continue. It is important to examine how we can move forward. As a Government, we should consider a new classification. We mentioned the everything-but-arms initiatives for exports from developing countries to the European Union. Perhaps we should make that everything but poppies and arms.

343WH
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—I would call her a friend—mentioned the need for the Commonwealth Development Corporation to get involved. I would suggest that it would be more suitable for the Export Credits Guarantee Department—the export credit agency, which is taking a more active role in considering issues of sustainable development and has learned lessons in Tanzania—to get involved. It could underpin the rebuilding of infrastructure and involve those companies that we have talked about before. They will need help and encouragement. I urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about the creation of credit lines for Afghanistan.
I wish to make a final point about the importance of education. I mentioned earlier the strong plea from the VSO teacher in Kashmir. When we went to schools in the refugee camps, we saw evidence of a tremendous thirst for learning. We were disappointed by the number of schools for girls compared with the number for boys, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that DFID funding will be used in a way that ensures total equality for girls' and boys' education in the Afghanistan of the future.
The schools must be of the highest standards. Yesterday, I attended the launch of the Kashmir Education Foundation, which runs the Pearl valley school and teacher training institute in Rawalakot in Azzad Kashmir. The standards at the school are higher than those at virtually every school in the UK; Afghan children want the highest standards. I commend the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the millennium targets for providing free education to children of primary school age. That is the key to the future of Afghanistan.
I held a surgery yesterday at the Alton school in Roehampton. I was using the office of Ann de Bono, the head teacher—she was away for the day—and saw this posted on the wall:
"Education is an important element in the struggle for human rights. It is the means to help our children and people rediscover their identity and thereby increase self-respect. It is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today."
That is so apposite to Afghanistan. We must help the Afghan people who dearly want to prepare today for their future.
4.31 pm
Ms Oona King: I should like to speak briefly and in less detail than I would have during my membership of the Select Committee on International Development throughout the previous Parliament, not least because I now spend my mornings in the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee discussing planning guidance and speed humps, on which I am now expert.
I begin with the most fundamental point, which is raised in the characteristically excellent report of the Select Committee on International Development: the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan began long before 11 September. It began in the nucleus of a failed state, and it will end only with the creation of a functioning state that has the capacity to serve its citizens and uphold the rule of law. The rule of law—in particular,
344WH
international humanitarian law—is key to addressing the humanitarian disaster, not just in Afghanistan, but beyond its borders.
In assessing the current situation in the country, the Select Committee report states in paragraph 65:
"Everyone we spoke to, whether in London or Pakistan, stressed to us that the most serious barrier to humanitarian assistance has been and remains poor security."
That is pertinent. First, it is clear that more troops are necessary and that an effective security network must be established beyond Kabul.
Secondly, if Afghanistan is to be rebuilt, the west must keep its promises. We have to put our money where our mouth is. I commend the Labour Government on their support for long-term development in Afghanistan, which consists of £20 million for the new Afghanistan Interim Authority, as well as £200 million over the next five years, on top of the £40 million already given, to address the humanitarian crisis.
However, if we are discussing money and payment of what is due, we must consider the position of the United States. I should declare an interest, in that I am an American citizen. I proudly hold an American passport and I spent Christmas with my family in New York. I have the greatest sympathy with the people of New York, Washington and America and feel nothing but horror at the violence that was wreaked upon the American public and at the motives of those who were responsible.
However, the American Government's resistance to paying their way in international development is short-sighted, to put it charitably. I live in hope that 11 September may change that, not because the American Government might become converted to the soft end of security—we in the European Union take that to be our forte, as was recently outlined by Commissioner Chris Patten—but because of realpolitik. We took little notice of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan before 11 September, but realised afterwards that it was relevant to us.
DFID has identified more than 39 failed states with a couple of dozen on the urgent list or to be watched. If we are to prevent failed states from harbouring terrorist networks and imposing all manner of indecent treatment on their population, we must move urgently towards the 0.7 per cent. target of gross national product that can be directed to rebuilding those failed states and dealing with humanitarian crises such as that in Afghanistan.
It has been said before in this debate and never ceases to take my breath away that America spends only 0.1 per cent. of its GNP on overseas development assistance. In Britain, the Labour Government have made it a priority to increase our spending on overseas development assistance and we are currently spending 0.31 per cent. of GNP. However, I agree with the Select Committee's report that we should set a timetable to reach the 0.7 per cent. target. Several European countries have reached that target and it is high time that we were at the forefront of that effort, particularly as we take a leading role in responding to humanitarian

345WH
crises and are rightly renowned around the world for having what many people believe is the best international development Department.
Norman Lamb: Does the hon. Lady agree that 10 years would be a sensible period within which to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent.?
Ms Oona King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Ten years is certainly a reasonable time scale. The latest it could feasibly be is the date for reaching the target of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee—2015. That must be our timetable and we cannot expect people to take us seriously if we do aim for that. We certainly cannot expect the most powerful and important country in the world—the United States—to take us seriously if we do not aim for that. We must argue strongly with our American colleagues that that target must be achieved for reasons of need and self-interest.
Many people said that the world changed after 11 September. During our first debate on that subject I said that the world had certainly changed and for the first time in my life I used the word "respect" in connection with President Bush. Unfortunately, I now find that I was premature in lavishing a certain amount of respect on him. As the most powerful leader in the world—and the leader of the free world—I am devastated about such irresponsible remarks. If we are to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, it is important that we direct our efforts to that country and not towards any other axis that may be on someone else's mind.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am old enough to remember—as, I suspect, is the hon. Lady—when President Reagan used the phrase "empire of evil". Much disrespect was shown to him at that time, but, subsequently, he was proved to be right. The same may yet be true of President Bush.
Ms King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already touched on whether hurling abuse through the international megaphone at Iran is helping or hindering our efforts to bring it around to how we want it to behave. We must take a regional approach. I certainly hope that the American Administration continue to edge slightly more towards the Cohn Powell position, as opposed to the Rumsfeld position.
I refer now to women in Afghanistan. I remember, as I am sure do all members of the Select Committee, that the Department for International Development and the Secretary of State said repeatedly that, if we are to have development, we must reach the girls. If a woman is educated, a family is educated. We need to act quickly and to use short cuts. Happily for women in the world, they are now a short cut to development. I hope that the Minister addresses some of his remarks to the efforts to include women both in society through education and in the Interim Administration. It is in all our interests that the crisis in Afghanistan is resolved, and resolved quickly.
4.42 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I have not spoken before in a debate that you have chaired, Mr. Chidgey, and I am delighted to welcome you to our proceedings. I also welcome the report of the International Development Committee of which I used to be a member. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on his excellent speech. His independence of thought was refreshing and welcome. He made the first of many contributions about the security situation in Afghanistan, which was also taken up by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and others.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) rightly connected the treatment of prisoners in Cuba with the situation in Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made much mention of the mother-in-law of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and his own mother, but he did not say much else, except in an interesting intervention about the treatment of prisoners. It occurred to me that, if the human race had done what he advocated, we would not have progressed very far out of the caves. Perhaps it is a good job that they were not listening to him.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said how much has been achieved. When discussing such problems, it is refreshing to realise that a lot has been achieved. He paid tribute to all those involved. He also made some interesting and important points about water security and reproductive health care—which is dear to my heart—and maternal and child health.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) emphasised the importance of sending cash in such situations so that food can be brought locally. That is so important. It is much better than carrying food all over the world. He also paid tribute to General Musharraf and the contribution of Pakistan. Several hon. Members agreed with my intervention about Iran. We must not forget the contribution that Iran has made, both in the refugee crisis and on previous occasions. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow emphasised the 0.7 per cent. target. I am glad that she agrees that it should be achieved in about 10 years, as that is my party's policy.
The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan before 11 September was dire, and not many people have mentioned that today. It was the poorest country in Asia and had experienced 25 years of war and three years of fierce drought, which affected not only Afghanistan, but the countries around it. A quarter of the population was dependent on food aid probably as early as this time last year, long before any of the action started. We were told that 6 million people were at risk and that many millions were flooding out to Pakistan and Iran in those years. The country was in terrible circumstances. Thanks to huge pressure from non-governmental organisations and hon. Members of all parties, after 11 September the humanitarian aspects of the crisis were kept to the fore at all times.
Thankfully, the winter was not as severe and the Taliban Government collapsed far more quickly than anyone, expected. The World Food Programme, the non-governmental organisations and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Banbury, the people of

347WH
Afghanistan, such as those who drove the trucks, are among the great heroes of the world. The latter are the bravest of all and never gave up forcing through food, despite the difficulties.
There are still difficulties. We do not know how many people are starving or dead—information is hard to glean—but we hope that there are not nearly as many as was anticipated when military action commenced. It would have been much better if the international community had listened to the calls and fed the people before 11 September. When giving evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State for International Development said that
"there was deafening silence before September 11. We had a potential humanitarian catastrophe of very large proportions before September 11 and the media, and most other people, were not in the least bit interested".
The consolidated appeal in 2000 received only 48 per cent. of the funding that it requested—half of what was needed. I wonder whether that was due to compassion fatigue. The appeal called for $662 million in November 2001. Three months later, the United Nations is still 25 per cent. short of that requirement, even given the events of 11 September. I wonder what is going on in the world.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I sympathise with the hon. Lady's point about the fact that aid was not given before 11 September, but does she acknowledge that it is hard to see what the west could have done to aid people until the Taliban were removed from power? It took the impetus of the terrible events of 11 September to justify and precipitate the military action that enabled aid to be given.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I understood that aid was getting through before 11 September. The NGOs said so to the Select Committee and, indeed, to me. It was only after 11 September that the borders were closed, and the subsequent military action made matters even more difficult. I believe that the west had some culpability even before then for allowing the Taliban to take control of the country in the first place. Afghanistan was abandoned for a while—I hope that that will not happen this time—so the Taliban took over the Government.
I note with great pride, although I am not a member of the Government, that of the donors who pledged humanitarian aid since 11 September, the United Kingdom and Germany are the only countries to have met and, indeed, exceeded their pledges. That is good news, and the Government are to be congratulated.
Nigel Fisher, the newly appointed special representative for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, said this month that it was terribly important that pledges were turned into the actual commitment of resources. A month on from the conference on reconstruction, very little cash has been contributed. The USA has pledged $298 million, but has it arrived? Is the money in the bank, and, indeed, is there a bank? It is important that the Minister tells us.
I have said before, and I repeat, that it is outrageous that the £200 million that DFID will provide over the next five years will come out of its own budget and not from the Treasury. The Treasury made £100 million
348WH
available to the Ministry of Defence to pursue military action, so why can it not make money available to the DFID to clear up the mess? I cannot believe that it does not regard humanitarian aid so highly, having seen the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent months.
I understand from people who have been to Afghanistan that the Interim Authority has great difficulty paying policemen and others in Kabul. I heard that, in one instance, notes were flown in to pay policemen to stay in Kabul. That is disgraceful, and action must be taken if there is to be any sort of security. While Afghanistan remains insecure and there is no money to pay what few policemen or soldiers there are, the country will drift towards chaos and back to the warlords. We must not let that happen, and it is essential that we get money to Kabul.
Hon. Members have mentioned that UK troops are likely to have to stay longer, particularly if Turkey does not take over in April. When he visited the UK, Hamid Karzai said that his country was like a patient that had just come out of a major operation and entered intensive care. My medical experience tells me that the days in intensive care are the most crucial time after a big operation. Please let us not abandon Afghanistan, but see it through to a full recovery. We must see it through convalescence, just as we are doing in Sierra Leone. I was recently in that country and it was heart-warming to see how much better things were and how much people appreciated the British Army and wanted it to stay on to train the troops.
I want to deal briefly with the issue of drought. Sue Lautze, the director of the livelihoods initiative programme at Tufts university, visited Afghanistan and reported that the drought may continue for 12 to 18 months. She emphasised all the same points about water security as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Further evidence to the Select Committee now suggests that there is heavy rain in Afghanistan, but that there is a lack of seeds and tools. If there is a lack of seeds to grow food, international drug dealers will make damn sure—I beg your pardon, Mr. Chidgey—very sure that there are poppy seeds to plant instead. It is important that we remember that the drugs trade that surrounds Afghanistan will swoop in pretty quickly.
In our previous debate on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, I and others stated that we should not underestimate the importance of developing the entire region, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) emphasised that again. Donors must focus on all of central Asia's failing economies, not just on Afghanistan. Any one of the central Asian states could fail if we do not address their problems. I note that Commissioner Patten called the events of 11 September "the dark side of globalisation", which is a good description. Since that day, many people have reminded us that development aid is an important issue for our future security. I am delighted that the International Development Committee has called for the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP to be reached within 10 years. It is very important that we do that.
I assume that the official Opposition are still sticking to their policy of abandoning that target and going for cash amounts rather than proportion of GDP. They may defend the USA—they seem to be George Bush's representatives in this country at the moment—but no

349WH
less an American than Bill Gates has castigated the US Government for their pathetic contribution, in terms of GDP, towards overseas aid. Perhaps they will listen to him.
Mr. Colman: Will the hon. Lady accept my assurances that the Congressmen were all quite shocked by the situation and took word of it back to the US? This is not simply the fault of Congress, but of the media in the United States, who are not explaining the situation.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
In the international development debate a few weeks ago, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who is no longer present, criticised me for castigating the USA. He has criticised me again this afternoon for failing to act on this issue and for failing to reach out to the rest of the world in the right way. I am now joined in that by one of my constituents, who is a member of the Conservative party—the good Commissioner Patten. He gave a very good interview to The Guardian recently, from which we have all been quoting, in which he described himself as "a life-long Americaphile" with
"not an ounce of Americaphobia in my body".
However, he fears that a deeper philosophical gulf between the United States and us could soon appear. The interview from The Guardian goes on to say:
"While Europeans believe in tackling the root causes of terror, Washington seems too keen only to eradicate the symptoms. While Europeans believe in 'engaging' potentially hostile nations, trying to bring them into the fold, Washington brands them an `axis of evil'. While Europeans believe in acting together, multilaterally, the US seems ever more bent on acting alone."
That paragraph contains quotations from Commissioner Patten but was written by The Guardian. I agree with the Commissioner very much and I hope that the Government are listening and will not follow blindly whatever the United States does.
4.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Thank you, Mr. Chidgey. It is a pleasure to be participating in a debate under your chairmanship for the first time. The debate has been excellent—I am sorry that several hon. Members who have contributed have had to go off, for very good reasons, to other engagements. Notwithstanding that, the International Development Committee—not for the first time, and I suspect not for the last—has done the House a service in the care and attention to detail that it has brought to its report.
It has been an extremely informative and interesting debate, which was summed up with characteristic generosity by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). In particular, the House has cause to be grateful to the Select Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said, when the inquiry was conducted there was a great deal of concern and anxiety about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. That concern was understandable and it was right, but the
350WH
Committee has been able to present a fair and balanced assessment of the position on the ground. It has also done us a service by teasing out some of the broader implications and issues, from which we can learn.
I would first like to echo the words of praise that several hon. Members have uttered for all those who have worked hard in the United Nations system and the aid agencies to deliver that outcome. I thank members of the Committee and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who is no longer in this Chamber, for their comments about the response of the Department for International Development to the crisis. I do so principally because it in turn gives me the opportunity to express my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of the whole House, to the many staff of DFID who have worked night and day—literally in some cases—to ensure that the response that the Committee praised became reality. Their contribution should rightly be recognised.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made an excellent speech and put the humanitarian issue in Afghanistan into a wider context. He rightly highlighted some of the challenging questions that arise from the experience there and elsewhere to which he and other hon. Members referred, especially the basis on which the international community will intervene in such circumstances in future. That is extremely important. In truth, the international community has felt its way forward in recent years in trying to answer that question. I am glad that we have moved from the era when the international community said that such matters were internal and could not be intervened in. Now we discuss among ourselves when we should intervene, on what basis and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, how we ensure the means to do so effectively.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) had a little dialogue about training. Hon. Members will probably be aware that American troops will be involved, along with others, in training the Afghan army. Germany will lead on police training. However, the process has not really begun. An effective plan must be in place for the work to be carried through.
Dr. Julian Lewis: This intervention will be similar to my initial one. Will the Minister comment on what further contributions other European countries propose to make to a continuing military presence for humanitarian purposes?
Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will return to military involvement later in my speech, and I will try to pick up that point.
It is extremely difficult to describe in few words what has happened in a country that has been so damaged by conflict, drought, refugee movement, insecurity and poverty. We have to remember that it is a country where average life expectancy is roughly what it was in the United Kingdom in the 1840s, before the great improvements in infrastructure and health that allowed us to move towards the life expectancy that we enjoy today. All hon. Members have agreed today on the fact that widespread famine has been averted in Afghanistan by the effective action of the assistance community. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), among others, acknowledged that.

351WH
We have averted famine thanks largely to the efforts of the UN-led international humanitarian system, and especially the Herculean efforts of the World Food Programme, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) rightly had great praise. It showed imagination, in that it used local truckers and changed delivery routes when the Taliban seized one of the local warehouses, which ensured that it could take more of the food to the secondary distribution centres. Unseen, it produced many facts and figures about the extent to which it succeeded in bringing food into the country. That satisfied the thirst for knowledge on the part of DFID, the House and the country and enabled us to answer the question, "How is it going?" However, I take the point of the hon. Member for Banbury that what matters in the end is whether the food reaches the people for whom it is intended.
As hon. Members have said, we also need to give special recognition to the courage and determination of the Afghan national staff of the UN and of the aid agencies. They played a crucial role in keeping the supply routes open, often at great personal risk, when international staff were evacuated after 11 September. The primary distribution of food has, despite all obstacles, provided enough to avoid a catastrophe. Since October 2001, approximately 325,000 tonnes of food aid have been distributed to more than 6 million people—a record volume of humanitarian assistance.
Mr. Colman: Amazing.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend uses the word "amazing". It is amazing, and it is important to pause and reflect on what the UN system, with support, has been able to achieve in the most difficult circumstances. Despite that, we cannot pause for more than a moment for self-congratulation. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains uncertain and fragile; there will continue to be significant needs for at least the coming year in the most difficult and volatile operating conditions. Because of severe weather and continuing concern about security in some isolated areas of the country, there are still places where people are not getting enough to eat. The WFP and other humanitarian agencies are continuing to do what they can to overcome those obstacles and to deliver food and other help. The indications appear to be that in the north and the west of the country, the prospects for some remediation of the drought are better than they are in the south and the east where, unfortunately, the signs are that it might continue.
Since the beginning of February, around 4,000 tonnes of food aid has been dispatched to the worst-affected provinces of Herat, Faryab, Badghis and Ghor. Food distribution will begin in Kandahar city on 14 March. In addition, the WFP is using helicopter-borne rapid assessment teams to find the isolated people in remote areas who are hungry, to provide essential food aid and to evaluate the effectiveness of the feeding programmes that are already in place.
City-wide food distribution has now begun in Mazar-i-Sharif, following similar distribution in Kabul and Herat. Approximately 53,000 families will receive WFP food rations totalling around 2,500 tonnes of wheat.
352WH
Supplies of other relief items, such as tents, blankets, and cooking equipment, continue to be provided to those who need them.
The opening of the Salang tunnel has improved the flow of supplies between the north and the south of the country. However, the recent landslide at the tunnel, due to heavy snowfall, illustrates the precarious state of the transport network. Transport infrastructure across the country is in a pretty poor condition, with a number of critical roads and bridges in need of extensive, large-scale, capital investment. Talking of bridges, the one that we now have to cross is the long and difficult process of reconstruction of a country that has suffered much.
During the debate, we have agreed that four things are needed. The first is a political commitment to peace—without sustained peace in Afghanistan, nothing else will be achievable in the long term. The second is a sense of security, the third a plan of action that is owned by the Government and people of the country and the fourth, effective support from the international community, which contributes to each of those objectives.
On the political commitment to peace, I mention the Bonn agreement. The praise for Lakhdar Brahimi's persistence and skill is richly deserved. That extraordinary achievement in very difficult circumstances has provided political commitment—although it remains to be seen whether all who have been involved in the conflicts in Afghanistan in the past 20 years have the same level of commitment to a new order in that country, as opposed to the state of disorder that there has been for almost a generation. The Interim Administration now in place faces the most daunting challenge. We might sometimes think that the job of government is difficult, but our difficulties are nothing compared to the problems faced by the Interim Administration.
The most urgent issue—it has been the dominant issue in today's debate—is security. The hon. Member for Banbury referred to it at the start of his speech. The greatest danger that Afghanistan faces is the risk of a return to disorder, criminality and faction fighting. The Interim Administration's initiative to try to demilitarise the cities has had some success, with reports that the number of weapons carried openly is now significantly reduced. With the support of ISAF, the overall security situation continues to show signs of improvement, particularly in Kabul.
The Government are well aware, because Hamid Karzai uses every opportunity to tell us, of the Interim Administration's passionate desire to extent ISAF's coverage to other parts of the country. It has been discussed, and it is being discussed as we speak, but the House will be aware that no decision has yet been taken. Major logistical, military and other challenges have to be faced while trying to achieve that objective. However, any steps that can be taken to extend security and a sense of safety to all parts of the country would be widely welcomed.
The international staff of the humanitarian agencies are now able to move freely on most major roads throughout the country, and local leaders and the Interim Administration are working to improve the security of other routes. Nevertheless, significant areas,

353WH
particularly in the east and the south, are still insecure because of military action or banditry, and because of the continuing danger posed by mines and unexploded ordnance referred to this afternoon. The United Nations Mine Action Service is leading and coordinating de-mining efforts, and the World Food Programme continues to provide immediate humanitarian help and assistance.
Two particular issues have been highlighted today—two important features of reconstruction that I want to touch on briefly. The first is education. UNICEF and the Ministry of Education are making real progress in starting the new school year next month. UNICEF's back-to-school campaign is continuing, and the procurement of education materials and equipment is under way. I was interested to hear of the event last week that involved the US Congressman and the steps that have been taken to print educational materials.
The aim of the project is simple: it is to assist 1.5 million Afghan girls and boys in to school when the school year starts on 23 March 2002. That will be a special day in the history of the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is the next generation whom we hope will inherit the fruits of peace, and that day will mark the restoration to half of that generation—the girls—the most important gift we can give. That gift is the right to an education, as my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said.
The most important thing to be done to enable women's participation in society in the years to come is to ensure that that half of the next generation is educated. The Department is supporting a range of initiatives to try to ensure that women are involved in the reconstruction effort. We are funding UNIFEM and OHCHR, and we are giving practical support to the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs, so that it can get started. It needs basic equipment, such as materials, infrastructure, desks, chairs, tables, paper and computers, so that it can begin to carry out the work that it is being given.
The second issue that was highlighted is health. There are real concerns about measles, respiratory infection, pregnancy-related complications, maternal mortality, which has already been referred to, diarrhoea and tuberculosis. The World Health Organisation is distributing emergency kits to hospitals and clinics and there is a national drugs supply programme. The WHO is working with the Ministry of Public Health on planning for the health infrastructure of the country. The immunisation programme is continuing. Indeed, it worked incredibly successfully even while the military conflict was going on. In the meantime, the health sector voluntary organisations and the Red Cross are providing the bulk of health capacity in the country.
Several hon. Members mentioned contributions—does the money match the rhetoric? The international community has contributed more than $630 million since September 2001 compared with the $1.8 billion appealed for to aid humanitarian and recovery activities until the end of this year. At the recent Tokyo conference, more than $4.5 million was pledged over the next five years. The Select Committee was concerned about the unwillingness of donors to turn their pledges into cash in the bank and was worried about what effect
354WH
that would have on practical assistance. However, our assessment is that although some donors have been slow to turn their pledges into cash, the assistance effort has not been seriously impaired. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Finance Minister Arsala, who was travelling through London on his way back to Afghanistan. We talked about several matters, but he did not express concern about any sort of major break from the kind of reconstruction that we all want to see.
The UN trust fund is disbursing money to pay civil service salaries, but as hon. Members have identified, there is a continuing problem with police salaries. Of the $20 million requested for the United Nations fund for the Interim Authority, $17 million has already been spent, so progress is being made. The Tokyo pledges are in addition to all the money that has already been provided, and we very much hope that the Tokyo pledges will be channelled through the Afghan reconstruction trust fund, which will be established shortly, rather than individual countries rushing ahead with many bilateral programmes, because we are concerned about co-ordination. We very much welcome the fact that the Interim Administration have set up an Afghan assistance co-ordination agency, which will hold the reconstruction plan for the country. We regard that as a welcome sign of Afghan ownership of the programme, and hope that it will provide a vehicle for mediating between the enthusiasm and willingness of donors to give support and the need to ensure that money is applied effectively according to priorities that are ultimately decided by the Afghan people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie gave us an outstanding description of the reconstruction challenge faced by Afghanistan and rightly drew attention to the tension between externally facilitated quick wins and the need to support the Afghan Administration in doing it for themselves.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Food and Agriculture Organisation understand the need to provide the right seeds. We are aware of the problem of dumping pharmaceuticals, which we do not support, and we are working to ensure that the right medicines are delivered.
I completely endorse the point raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) about the countries that in current parlance are termed the "stans". They have suffered the most astonishing collapse in their economies. In the great depression of 1929, which we read about but some people lived through, gross national product declined by about 28 per cent. Some of the countries we are talking about have experienced a collapse of 40, 50 or 60 per cent. in their economies in the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we need to know more about what is happening. A conference took place last week at Lancaster House, arising out of an original suggestion from the Department for International Development. It was organised by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and others and brought together seven of those countries precisely to say, "Tell us how things are going. What more can we do to help?" It has helped to throw the spotlight on their circumstances.

355WH
I want also to touch briefly on repatriation and returnees. The UNHCR estimates that in January 2002, 130,000 Afghans returned home from Pakistan and Iran. It is planning for a bigger number in the coming months, not because it intends to tell people that they must return—I am happy to confirm to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, that it must be a voluntary return—but because more people will feel that they are able to return to their homes and communities, principally because there is security. As such, we must ensure that we can provide practical support on health care, food, water and sanitation. As the question of Iran was raised, I should say that the UK has provided £1 million through the United Nations for education and health for refugees in that country.
Norman Lamb: The Minister seemed to be moving to a close, and it appeared as if he was not going to get on to the question that I wanted to raise, which concerns food production. A brief comment was made about the importance of seeds, but there have been reports in the past few days of a considerable expansion in the number of poppies being grown. The one thing that the Taliban did correctly was to impose a ban on the planting of poppies. That has gone, and it appears that poppies are being planted in large parts of the country. As this seems to be a question of the market and the price that the farmers get for their product, what strategy is being developed to ensure that they have the right incentives to grow food rather than poppies? Sustainable development will depend on that, but we appear to be moving in the opposite direction. What assessment has been made of the extent to which the warlords of the Northern Alliance are involved in the drugs trade and thereby perpetuating the problem?
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point, because it is topical. The poppy harvest is four to six weeks away. The honest truth is that the Taliban were successful in enforcing the ban on poppy planting in the same way as they were successful in enforcing many other things about which hon. Members would feel much less happy. In the current circumstances, and with the disappearance of the Taliban and uncertainty about the future, the poppy has returned. We have a certain amount of information about what is happening, but Afghanistan is a fractured country, and the remit of the Interim Administration does not extend throughout. The Interim Administration have said that they do not want the poppy to be planted, but they do not yet have the means to enforce that.
356WH
The hon. Gentleman made the most important point when he said that the only long-term solution will be to find alternative ways of earning a living, feeding a family and keeping body and soul together for those who plant the crops. They plant poppies not because they are interested in fuelling the drugs trade in this country or elsewhere in Europe, but because it is a way to survive. Any strategy to try to eradicate poppy production must be based on the recognition that in the long term, we must give people alternatives.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On the principle that perseverance wins, may I ask again whether the Minister is satisfied with projected plans for military protection of humanitarian aid? Is he satisfied that our European colleagues are making a sufficient contribution, and if he is not sure now, will he write to me? In any event, does he accept the main point that, as countries that have done much of the fighting, the United States and United Kingdom should be able to look to our European colleagues to supply long-term military protection for humanitarian aid, especially as a European Commissioner is so willing to speak on such questions, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park noted?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman neatly brings me to the broader question of what contribution each of us needs to make to see the process through. Several hon. Members are half American, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and I. I am proud of being half American. My hon. Friend referred to America's role. This has been a difficult period for America. It is hard for any country, society or person to wake up suddenly and discover that not everyone sees one in the way in which one sees oneself.
We, the Americans, our European colleagues, and other countries must ask ourselves what we need to do to achieve the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What money or military support will we give, or will the contribution be in kind? We have to will the means if we meant what we said as an international community, which was that once the military action was over, we would not walk away from Afghanistan. There has been some discussion about the axis of this or that. We should be interested in an axis of reconstruction for the future of Afghanistan, and in an axis of countries that are committed to increasing their overseas development assistance. Above all, we need an axis of determination. Poverty, injustice and inequality scar the world, and we must ensure that they are less in the years to come. That is the real lesson of the events of the past six months. We have made a small but important step along the way, but much work remains to be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Five o'clock.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the tourism industry on the impact of the level of the pound against the euro since 1997. [35752]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers receive regular representations from across the business community on many issues and we value their insights. The Government fully appreciate that the weakness of the euro, together with a sharp slowdown in the world economy last year, has made conditions difficult for tourism and other exporting industries.

  The Government's commitment to helping the tourism industry has been underlined by Monday's announcement of the unique package of match funding with the industry for promotion of the UK overseas. This £20 million package means than an extra £38 million has now been granted from the reserve, in support of tourism promotion, since the start of foot and mouth. This is at a time of great economic pressure.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the performance of the euro since 1 January. [35761]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on day-to-day developments in the foreign exchange market. The Government are pleased that the euro area is experiencing a broadly smooth changeover.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his German counterpart on the European single currency. [35774]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor has frequent discussions on a wide range of issues with his European counterparts.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the north-west are receiving working family tax credit. [35753]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently more than 181,000 families in the north-west benefiting from WFTC.

  Voluntary and Community Sectors
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to support the voluntary and community sectors. [35754]
  1426W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We value greatly the contribution of the voluntary and community sectors and have provided extensive support through a variety of fiscal and other measures.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on policy measures he intends to take by way of taxation to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy. [35756]

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he is taking in relation to the productivity gap between Britain and her main European competitors. [35765]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have made significant progress in creating a modern corporate tax regime, providing long-term stability and the best possible environment for investment. The UK now has its lowest ever corporation tax rate, and the lowest rate of any major industrialised nation.

  The Pre-Budget Report announced new measures to further encourage growth and improve competitiveness, including: further reduction in the CGT rate for business assets; an R&D tax credit for large companies; and a doubling of the size limit for the Enterprise Management Incentives employee share option scheme.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of productivity on the UK's competitiveness. [35757]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government recognise the importance of productivity for competitiveness and is raising the sustainable rate of productivity growth through both macroeconomic stability and measures to promote competition, enterprise, skills and investment.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact that changes in regulation have had on the competitiveness of UK industry since 1997. [35766]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have not made an aggregated assessment of the impact of regulation since 1997. Establishing such an assessment would undoubtedly involve significant practical difficulties.

  The impact of changes to a single regulation is considered at the policy development stage. A Regulatory Impact Assessment is completed for regulatory proposals unless the regulation has no or negligible costs. A RIA sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. This process helps policy makers to think through the consequences of proposals, improving the quality of advice to Ministers and encouraging informed public debate.

  Where Ministers choose a regulatory option, they must be satisfied that the benefits justify the costs.

  Debt Relief
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the heavily indebted poor countries' debt relief process in delivering a sustainable exit from debt for eligible countries. [35759]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK continues to work hard to ensure that the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative delivers an exit from unsustainable debt for eligible countries. We also call on other countries to follow our leads on bilateral policies, such as 100 per cent. relief at decision point, and in holding payments in trust for those countries yet to receive debt relief. Already 25 countries have qualified for debt relief, and they will benefit from over $60 billion in debt reduction, which will bring their debts to below the developing countries average.

  Indeed, just last week Ghana reached decision point qualifying for $3.7 billion of debt relief from the international community, and the UK is playing its part writing off over £200 million of debt owed by Ghana.

  At their meetings in November last year, both the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) and the IMF and Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF, recognised that lower global growth prospects and declining terms of trade are likely to adversely affect many low-income countries. The IMFC, chaired by the Chancellor, called on the IMF, in close collaboration with the World Bank, to respond flexibly and proactively to the needs of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs), including through additional concessional financing and debt relief where appropriate.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss the reform of the HIPC initiative to ensure that debt sustainability is consistent with achieving the 2015 development goals at the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico in March. [39254]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Government continue to work hard to ensure that the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative is a success and that it delivers a robust exit from unsustainable debt for eligible countries. The UK has been pushing to ensure that both donor countries and the international financial institutions respond flexibly and proactively to the needs of HIPCs in the current economic climate, and help those HIPCs that have yet to benefit from debt relief (such as those in conflict). In addition, the UK has pressed for all countries participating in the Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey, Mexico in March, to agree that future reviews of debt sustainability should also bear in mind the impact of debt relief on progress towards the achievement of the development goals contained in the Millennium Declaration (as can be seen from the draft Monterrey Consensus outcomes document, available at http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/).
  1428W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss greater and faster debt relief with(a) the International Monetary Fund, (b) the World Bank and (c) the regional development banks. [39253]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Government have consistently been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and have repeatedly pushed for the process to be speeded up.

  Out of 42 HIPCs in total, the UK Government are pleased that 25 have already reached decision point. However, most of the remaining countries are in conflict or have governance problems. For this reason the UK Government argued strongly last year for the creation of an International Monetary Fund post-conflict assistance account, and the UK is the first country to make a contribution.

  This account will help these countries to make progress towards peace, good governance and a sound economic framework so that they can secure the full benefits of debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

  Moreover, in November last year, in his role as chair to the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the International Monetary Fund, the Chancellor urged the World Bank and IMF to update their debt sustainability analyses in light of the global economic slowdown and declines in terms of trade. We should be proactive and flexible in order to supply additional debt relief at completion point for HIPCs, to ensure that the initiative delivers a robust exit from unsustainable debt.

  The United Nations Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey, Mexico in March and the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in April will provide an opportunity for the UK Government to discuss greater and faster debt relief with international financial institutions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss his proposal to hold the debt repayments of those countries without agreed poverty reduction strategy papers in a trust until a PRSP is agreed with other donor countries at the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico in March. [39255]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Government continue to use international meetings to push other donor countries to follow the UK's lead on its "hold in trust" policy, and hold all debt payments in trust for the day they can be returned to fund poverty reduction for all countries still to secure debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative because of civil wars, external conflict or the absence of a poverty reduction programme. We also urge other countries to continue to help those heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) that have yet to benefit from debt relief by providing them both technical and financial assistance on concessional terms and this year, we have spent £130 million on technical advice and capacity building, to support the PRSP process.
  1429W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss the reform of poverty reduction strategy papers to take account of the financial resources required to achieve the 2015 development goals at the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico in March. [39256]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Government have been at the forefront of pressing for the development of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers as a key element of the HIPC debt relief process. PRSPs already provide an excellent framework for countries to set out their own spending priorities and needs, in order to achieve country owned goals, including the Millennium Development Goals.

  However, so far only 10 full PRSPs have been prepared although more than another 30 are under preparation. At the Financing for Development Conference the UK Government will continue to press for the development of well designed and costed PRSPs in all eligible countries. The UK Government will also continue to be calling for a substantial increase in development assistance in order to provide the financing required to meet the Millennium Development Goals.

  Polarisation (Financial Advice)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to the Financial Services Authority's proposals to end polarisation in financial advice. [35760]

  Ruth Kelly
  I am pleased that the FSA have been able to take forward work on the polarisation regime by publishing consultation paper 121, setting out the options for reform. And I am sure there will be a lively debate about the FSA's proposals.

  In principle, these proposals could represent a significant move in the direction of deregulation while maintaining and enhancing consumer protection. But they are of course subject to consultation and I would encourage all those with views to look at the consultation paper and supporting research reports, and let the FSA have their views by 19 April.

  Low Pay
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the take-home pay of those in low paid work. [35763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the last Parliament this Government introduced the following measures to make work pay: national minimum wage; working families tax credit and childcare tax credit; the 10 pence and 22 pence rates of income tax; and reforms to national insurance contributions.

  As a result of these measures families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are on average £1,700 a year better off in real terms.
  1430W
  From April 2003, the working tax credit will extend the principles of WFTC to low paid people without children.

  Public Debt
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the additional public debt would be as a percentage of GDP if all capital expenditure agreed under private finance and private partnership initiatives were included. [35764]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In my answer to my hon Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1144–46W, I set out the estimated level of capital spend by the private sector in projects taken forward under the private finance initiative.

  It is not possible to calculate accurately the increased level of public debt that would be created if these projects were funded instead by the public sector. That would depend on the way in which the project was taken forward. Since the abolition of universal testing, public authorities choose the method of procurement which is best suited to individual projects.

  Families
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the measures he announced in the pre-Budget report to support families. [35768]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations regarding measures announced in the PBR to support families and have held discussions with a wide range of organisations both within and outside of Government. These are being considered ahead of Budget and Spending Review 2002.

  Productivity
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecasts are for the impact of productivity on UK economic growth over the next three years. [35770]

  Ruth Kelly
  Table A4 of the November 2001 pre-Budget Report (Cm 5318) shows the assumed contribution of trend labour productivity growth to trend output growth in the Government's latest economic forecast. In the neutral case, growth of trend labour productivity is assumed to contribute 1.9 percentage points to annual trend output growth during the pre-Budget report forecast period.

  Investment
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal steps he is taking to encourage investment by British business: [35771]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) at column 1424W.

  Public Services
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for investment in public services in London. [35772]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Plans for expenditure on public services across the UK for the next three years will be set out in the summer, following the Spending Review.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to fund improvements in local authority public services; and if he will make a statement. [35769]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are making additional investment in public services. Local authorities are no exception. Government grant increased by 7.5 per cent. in the 2002–03 local government finance settlement, with provision for spending on education up 8.8 per cent. and social services up 6.2 per cent.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allocate additional resources for renewable energy in the comprehensive spending review. [35773]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Spending plans and outcome targets for Departments will be set as part of the 2002 spending review. The aim of the review will be to determine how best Departments' programmes can contribute to the Government's priorities.

  The 2002 spending review will roll forward existing spending plans and set budgets and outcome targets for Departments up to 2005–06. The aim of the review will be to determine how best Departments' programmes can contribute to the Government's priorities.

  The review, which will conclude by the summer of 2002, will take a thorough look at all programmes to ensure that the new plans fully reflect the Government's priorities and the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. Each Department has been asked to produce a sustainable development report, which will assist in the consideration of the social, economic and environmental implications of their plans.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on the combined heat and power industry. [35775]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy package has delivered significant benefits to the combined heat and power (CHP) industry.

  Fuel used by CHP, heat produced by CHP and electricity sold direct from CHP are all free of the levy. CHP plant can also benefit from 100 per cent. Capital Allowances. Nevertheless, as announced in the Pre-Budget Report, the Government will consider the environmental case for providing even more favourable treatment for CHP.

  Employment Levels
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent measures he has taken to improve levels of employment. [35776]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures recently announced show that the employment level is at 28,232 million, and the claimant unemployment level stands at 951,000. Claimant unemployment in Ealing, South all is down by 27 per cent. since 1997. The new deal has been a contributing factor to these levels of unemployment.

  In particular new deal for young people has been successful in its four years of operation; it has placed over 340,000 18-24-year-olds into work. The new deal for 25 plus and the enhanced programme (since April 2001) has also helped over 92,000 long-term unemployed people into work.

  To build on this performance, the Government have introduced further measures to increase the effectiveness of the new deal and other employment programmes, including: piloting greater flexibility in the Options section of NDYP from November 2001 to give personal advisers more freedom to tailor the provision of support to meet the needs of the individuals, local employers and local labour markets; establishing a pilot mentoring scheme from January 2002 to assess how mentoring can best be used to improve employment chances and job retention under the new deal; step-up a new programme of transitional employment pilots will target our hardest to help clients who have not been able to find a job through the new deal. People who take up these jobs will receive individual support so that they can eventually make the transition to unsupported jobs in the open labour market; the Government are allocating additional resources to strengthen the Job Transition Service over the next two years, this is to support those communities affected by large-scale redundancies; and the working families' tax credit (WFTC) helps to make work pay for low to middle income families with children. Nearly 1.3 million families with children are currently receiving the WFTC, around 400,000 more than received its predecessor, Family Credit. On average these families are receiving £35 a week more on WFTC than under Family Credit.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operations of the Office for National Statistics. [35777]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Office for National Statistics operates in accordance with its three year business plan and reports performance in its annual report and accounts. Copies of these documents are available in the House of Commons Library and on the National Statistics website.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how the new integrated tax credits will affect families with children in Lancashire. [35778]
  1433W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The new child tax credit, to be introduced in April 2003, will be a single, seamless system of support for families with children. It will build on the foundation of universal child benefit, bringing together all income related payments for children into a single strand of support paid to the main carer.

  The child tax credit will be complemented by the new working tax credit and rates and thresholds for these two new tax credits will be set in Budget 2002. As decisions on rates and thresholds have not yet been taken, it is not possible to assess the impact of the tax credits on particular families.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the estimate his Department has made of the proportion of the work force who are unemployed and economically inactive, broken down by region. [35779]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's aim is employment opportunity for all, moving towards our long-term ambition that, by the end of the decade, there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.

  The number of jobs has increased by over 1.25 million since the 1997 election, with employment rising and unemployment falling in every region and country of the UK.

  The monthly National Statistics First Release "Labour Market Statistics" reports labour market data for the regions and countries of the UK. The regional labour market summary in Table 18(1) includes figures on unemployment and economic activity on the basis requested. This publication is available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the aggregate debt is authorised through PFI projects by the Government sine 1997. [35780]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The annual Financial Statement and Budget Report sets out the estimated level of payments under PFI contracts for the next 25 years. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1144–46W, I updated this table.

  These figures represent expected payments for services delivered under PFI contracts. Such payments are conditional on the delivery of services to the agreed standard and may be terminated or abated in the event of failure to do so.

  World Poverty
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in international efforts to relieve world poverty. [35781]

  Ruth Kelly
  In recent decades, global development progress has taken place at historically unprecedented rates. Over the last 40 years life expectancy at birth in developing countries has increased by a remarkable 20 years. Over the past 30 years, the illiteracy rate in the 1434W
  developing world has been cut by nearly half, from 47 per cent. to 25 per cent. of all adults. The number of people subsisting on less than $1 per day rose steadily for nearly two centuries, but over the past 20 years it has begun to fall. Thanks to better economic policies in many countries—most importantly in China and India—the number of poor people worldwide has fallen by up to 200 million, even as the world's population rose by 1.6 billion since 1980.

  But progress has not been even. Sub-Saharan Africa saw no increase in its per capita incomes between 1965 and 1999, even with improved performance in the late 1990s. Despite progress in education and health indicators, the AIDS epidemic has sharply reversed progress on life expectancy in this region. Many of the transition economics of Eastern Europe and Central Asia suffered deep declines in living standards and sharp rises in inequality during the 1990s.

  The UK fully supports the Millennium Development Goals agreed by the United Nations, including that by 2015: instead of 110 million children denied primary education, every child will have the chance of schooling; instead of seven million avoidable deaths each year from preventable diseases, child mortality will be reduced by two thirds; and instead of one billion living in absolute poverty, the proportion of people living in poverty will be halved by 2015.

  These are challenging targets. But with the right policies in developing countries and developed countries, supported by the right amount and effective use of resources, most of the goals are achievable. For globalisation to be managed well, we need effective and transparent global institutions which address the challenges in the poorest countries. Trade, investment and development assistance are essential building blocks for poverty reduction.

  The Government have increased the budget of the Department for International Development (DfID) to £3.6 billion—a 45 per cent. increase in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04. We will significantly raise the amount of our development aid, and also raise its share in national income, in our next spending round covering the years up to 2005–06. The Government are also promoting a significant increase in development aid from all donor countries and international institutions to build capacity and address the long-term causes of poverty in the poorest countries. The Government have proposed an International Development Trust Fund to pool contributions and build on the work of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the regional development banks.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his 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, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed; [38728]

  (2) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department (a) won new

  1435W
  contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years; [38727]

  (3) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with (a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years. [38726]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Office of National Savings
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 1037W, if he will place a copy of the strategic marketing review in the Library. [39035]

  Ruth Kelly
  It would not be appropriate to place the strategic marketing review in the Library as it contains material that is commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 1037W, what action the Office of National Savings has taken, pursuant to the conclusion of the strategic marketing review that it should develop the relationship with Post Office. [39034]

  Ruth Kelly
  We have set up a governance structure at a strategic and tactical level between National Savings and Investments and Post Office Limited, working jointly on projects to achieve positive outcomes and increased value for both organisations. This has led to a deeper understanding of each organisation's primary objectives and business environment, and consequently a much greater degree of commercial and operational alignment.

  Payroll Systems
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many small businesses have accepted the offer of a detailed health check of their payroll systems. [38515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March 2001*—1,075

  1 April 2001 to 31 January 2002—627

  * First year health check service offered.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the trends in the number of income tax payers between(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [38518]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 2.1, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income—tax/it—t01—1.htm.

  UK Poverty
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce poverty in the United Kingdom. [35758]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. A strategy document entitled "Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life" was published in December 2001. This document will inform the Budget and Spending Review 2002.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been. A new tax credit for families with children—the child tax credit—will be introduced for children from April 2003 building on the foundation of universal child benefit. But child poverty is not only about incomes, it is also about inadequate service provision. The Government have made substantial new investments in this area. From 2000–01—2003–04, average real-terms annual growth in spending on education and training in England will be over 5.5 per cent. In addition, extra funds have been made available for Sure Start, Neighbourhood Renewal and the Children's Fund.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been allocated from the contingency fund to finance the military action in Afghanistan. [35767]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Contingencies Fund is not part of the Government's budgetary arrangements. It allows for cash advances to departments for expenditure on urgent services in anticipation of parliamentary approval.

  MOD are seeking an advance pending Spring Supplementary Estimates approval for £1.6 billion, to be repaid once the Estimate is approved. This relates to a range of additional resources for MOD, including Afghanistan.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 1133-34W, which set out the level of MOD spending on Afghanistan.

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he selected Arthur Andersen to take the lead role in his value for money report on PFI; and how many PFI contracts have been given to(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture since that report was completed. [33283]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Through a competition under established procurement procedures, a report on Value for Money Drivers in the Private Finance Initiative was commissioned in 1999 by the Treasury Taskforce. Three firms bid for the work including Arthur Andersen, which was selected because it offered best value for money.
  1437W
  The report was delivered to the Taskforce and made available publicly in January 2000. Information on contracts for advisory services to departments on PFI projects is not recorded centrally.

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers,

  HM Treasury including DMO

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Andersen

  nil

  nil

  nil

  £49,350

  £15,275

  Deloitte & Touche

  nil

  £411

  nil

  nil

  £91,473

  Ernst & Young

  £9,928

  £156,144

  £122,800

  nil

  nil

  KPMG

  £52,876

  £5,875

  £268,775

  £41,125

  nil

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  £46,903

  £87,773

  £356,513

  £462,251

  £19,892

  Office of Government Commerce including OGC Buying Solutions

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Andersen Consulting

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Deloitte & Touche

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Ernst & Young

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  KPMG

  £138,000

  £117,000

  £110,000

  261,000

  £85,000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  HM Customs & Excise

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Accenture plc

  £57,479

  £6,181,215

  Andersen Consulting

  £245,340

  Deloitte & Touche

  £161,301

  £248,503

  £231,791

  £876,061

  £38,748

  Ernst & Young

  £357,450

  £397,528

  £108,256

  £253,153

  £215,748

  KPMG

  £37,167

  £282,528

  £255,856

  £214,190

  £1,237,316

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  £153,204

  £207,495

  £243,254

  £111,356

  Inland Revenue

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Information for these years can only be provided at disproportionate cost

  Andersen

  nil

  nil

  Deloitte & Touche

  nil

  £2,115

  Ernst & Young/Cap Gemini

  £1,937,237

  £1,673,971

  KPMG

  £92,500

  nil

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  £141,101

  £190,372

  The Valuation Office—Executive Agency of the Inland Revenue

  No contracts have been let by this agency during the period in question

  The Royal Mint including Audit Work

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Andersen

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Deloitte & Touche

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Ernst & Young

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  KPMG

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  £99,000

  £58,000

  £57,000

  £137,000

  £51,000

  1438W
  (b) Ernst & 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. [33840]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following information and tables provide the information required in the form in which the Chancellor's Departments and agencies have been able to compile it, without having to incur disproportionate costs.
  1439W

  Office of National Statistics

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Andersen Consulting

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Deloitte & Touche

  £14,687

  nil

  nil

  £699

  £15

  Ernst & Young

  nil

  nil

  nil

  £50

  nil

  KPMG

  £44,325

  £472,769

  £44,325

  £251,876

  £191,296

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  nil

  £581

  nil

  £2,198

  nil

  National Savings

  Spend £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Andersen Consulting

  nil

  £14,000

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Deloitte &Touche

  nil

  £56,000

  £799,000

  £570,000

  £420,000

  Ernst &Young

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  KPMG

  £518,000

  £999,000

  nil

  nil

  nil

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  £15,000

  £310,000

  £32,000

  £43,000

  nil

  Government Actuaries Department

  Have not dealt with any of the companies in question for the years mentioned.

  Royal Mint Shareholder Panel
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the process by which members of the Royal Mint shareholder panel were chosen; and if he will place the terms of reference for the posts in the Library. [38258]

  Ruth Kelly
  In addition to civil servants, the shareholder panel's three private sector members were appointed using the principles set out in the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This involved seeking nominations from approximately 130 private and public sector bodies, selection by a panel including an independent assessor and public announcement of the appointments.

  The terms of reference for the posts have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  War Debts
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]

  (2) what total payments have been made to meet World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries; what debts remain unpaid; and what the schedule is of future payments to the UK; [38425]

  (3) what the level is of First World War debt owed by the United Kingdom to the United States of America; in what year repayments were last made to the USA; and what plans he has to (a) pay off the debt and (b) cancel liability to this debt; [38427]

  (4) what outstanding schedule of payments the United Kingdom Government will make to the USA in respect of World War II debt; and what the date is of the final payment; [38424]
  1440W
  (5) what loans and other financial liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom with the United States of America for World War II (a) have been paid and (b) are outstanding; [38426]

  (6) what recent representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the USA for the cancellation of (a) World War I and (b) World War II debts and lend-lease loans. [38440]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows.

  First World War debt

  At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around £850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.

  At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (£2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billion—at 1934 exchange rates this was around £866 million).

  Second World War debt

  Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around £1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around £930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around £145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.
  1441W
  Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

  As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend in 1945.

  All World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries have either been repaid or settlements have been agreed with the countries concerned. Details are provided in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom and their successor the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for the financial years 1945–46 to 1987–88 and the following Command Papers:

  China CM 198;

  Czechoslovakia Cmd 7798 and Cmnds 55, 56 and 2280;

  France Cmnd 6988;

  Netherlands Cmd 7358;

  Poland Cmd 6864 and 7148 and Cmnd 1057;

  Turkey Cmds 6165 and 9120; and

  USSR Cmd 7297.

  Overseas Education
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for increasing Britain's contributions towards education in foreign countries in the next three years. [38815]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are strongly committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goals of universal primary education (UPE) in all countries by the year 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005.

  Since May 1997 the Department for International Development has committed over £600 million to education. In addition, we will be launching the Commonwealth Education Fund on 12 March. The Fund will support the achievement of universal primary education (UPE) in the poorest Commonwealth countries. The Government have pledged £10 million to kickstart the Fund, and will match donations from business and individuals pound for pound including tax relief.

  Education will continue to be given high priority under our development assistance programme because it is a precondition of development and poverty reduction.
  1442W
  The UK's International Development budget has risen by 45 per cent. in real terms since 1997 and is now at the highest level ever. The ratio of Official Development Assistance to Gross National Product is on course to rise from 0.26 per cent. to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04. We will significantly raise the amount of our development aid, and also raise its share in national income, in our next spending round covering the years up to 2005–06.

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects all countries eligible for assistance with debt relief under the HIPC initiative to receive debt relief; and what plans he has to raise this at the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico in March. [39252]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Government have consistently been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and have repeatedly pushed for the process to be speeded up.

  To be eligible for assistance with debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative countries must show a commitment to poverty reduction and have an interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Out of 42 HIPCs in total, the UK Government are pleased that 25 have already reached decision point.

  However, of the remaining countries most are in conflict or have governance problems. For this reason the UK Government argued strongly last year for the creation of an International Monetary Fund post-conflict assistance account. This account will help these countries to make progress towards peace, good governance and a sound economic framework so that they can secure the full benefits of debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

  The UK raised these issues at the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank last year, and will continue to do so in all appropriate international forums, including the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico in March.

  Devolved Administrations (Spending)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the mathematical formula he uses to decide net change to spending for devolved administrations. [38822]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The formula was published by the Treasury in the Statement of Funding Policy in July 2000.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 700W, on special advisers, if he will state the purpose of advising departmental heads of information of contacts with the media; and if he will make a statement. [39109]

  Ruth Kelly
  The purpose is set out in clause 9 of the code of conduct on special advisers.

  Small Enterprises (Allowances)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 579W, on small enterprise allowances, what use has been made of these allowances. [38660]

  Dawn Primarolo
  While the Inland Revenue are looking at how businesses use the scheme, it is not currently possible to draw any conclusions.

  Computer Software
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what computer software complies with the Inland Revenue's payroll software standards. [38516]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently 13 software packages which have been tested and proven to comply with the Inland Revenue payroll standard.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the changes in Inland Revenue staff numbers between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2002. [38519]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The changes in Inland Revenue staff numbers between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2002—given in the Official Report, 4 February 2002, column 695W—are due to the net effect of various new initiatives including support for new businesses, the extension of child tax credit and the collection of student loans and in response to the Grabiner report into the informal economy. They are consistent with figures of planned annual staff usage published in the Government's Expenditure Plans, 2001–04, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the work of the Inland Revenue Business Support Team. [38514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The published Inland Revenue Annual Report for the year ending 31 March 2000 (pages 12 to 13) contains full details of the work of Inland Revenue Business Support Teams.

  Enterprise Schemes
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the economic impact of the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust schemes. [38512]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An independent contractor is currently undertaking research, for the Inland Revenue, into the economic effects of the EIS and VCT schemes. This work is expected to be completed in the summer.

  Enterprise Management Incentives
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies with fewer than(a) 16 and (b) seven employees took advantage of enterprise management incentives in 2000–01. [38517]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Enterprise management incentives (EMI) were introduced in Finance Act 2000 as part of the Government's productivity and enterprise agenda. They are targeted, tax-advantaged share option 1444W
  incentives to help small companies recruit and retain the staff they need to grow. Until Finance Act 2001 there was a limit of 15 on the number of employees in a company that could be granted EMI options. In Finance Act 2001 that limit was removed and replaced with an overall limit on the value of options granted of £3 million per company.

  In January 2002 the gross asset limit, which defines the size of company that can qualify for EMI, was doubled from £15 million to £30 million. The number of people employed by a company is not relevant to the decision on whether it qualifies to grant EMI options and the information requested is not available. However, between 6 April 2000 and 5 April 2001 4,540 options were granted by 807 companies, an average of 5.6 options per company.

PRIME MINISTER

  Senior Salaries
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. [40338]

  The Prime Minister
  The 2002 report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries, which makes recommendations about the pay of the senior civil service, senior military personnel and the judiciary, together with the annual uprating of Parliamentary salaries, is being published today. Copies are in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their work.

  The main recommendations of the Review Body are: Senior Civil Service (SCS): an increase from 1 April 2002 of 2.5 per cent. to the Government's final indicative rates for the minima, target rates and maxima for each pay band and a new band for Permanent Secretaries; a minimum bonus payment of 3 per cent. or £2,000, whichever is the higher, for those making the greatest contribution; and a sum equivalent to 0.4 per cent. of the total SCS pay bill to be made available for use by departments to address anomalies; Senior military: an increase from 1 April 2002 of 2.5 per cent. in the value of all points on the new incremental pay scales; and Judiciary: an increase from 1 April 2002 of 8 per cent.

  The Government have decided to accept these recommendations in full for the senior civil service and senior military. The award for the judiciary will be staged, with 3.6 per cent. payable from 1 April 2002, and the remaining 4.4 per cent. payable from 1 April 2003.

  The cost of all the awards will be met within existing departmental expenditure limits.

  Pay increases for Members of Parliament and Ministers are linked automatically to the increase in pay bands for the senior civil service. Their pay entitlement will therefore increase from 1 April 2002 by 2.5 per cent. In addition they will receive the second and final instalment of £2,000 recommended by the Review Body on Senior Salaries in its forty eighth report of March 2001.
  1445W

  Government Properties
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister in respect of(a) the flat above No. 10 Downing Street, (b) the flat above No. 11 Downing Street, (c) the flat in 1 Carlton Gardens, (d) Flat 1 in Admiralty House, (e) Flat 2 in Admiralty House, (f) Flat 3 in Admiralty House and (g) Government House in Pimlico (i) who the present occupants are, (ii) how much has been spent on (A) routine maintenance and (B) other building works in each year since 1995 and (iii) which have their council tax liabilities met by the inhabitants. [34369]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 2002.]: The flats above numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street have traditionally been the residences of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The flat in 1 Carlton Gardens is currently occupied by the President of the Council. The flats in Admiralty House and the Government House in Pimlico, which in the past have been assigned to a variety of Ministers, are currently occupied by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Secretary. One flat in Admiralty House is currently unoccupied.

  Payment for routine maintenance and other building works is the responsibility of the occupying Minister's department. Expenditure on work to the flat above No. 11 Downing Street is as follows:

  1997–98: £16,471;

  1998–99: £48,336;

  1999–00: £32,189;

  2000–01: £37,501.

  Figures for 1995 to 1997 are not available in this form.

  The level and responsibility for payment of council tax is determined on whether the property is the Minister's main or secondary residence. If a main residence, the responsibility for payment of the tax falls to the Minister. I am responsible for meeting the full cost of the council tax on the flat above number 11 Downing Street.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many receptions have been held at No. 10 Downing Street since 1 May 1997; and if he will list(a) the date, (b) the purpose, (c) the host, (d) the estimated number in attendance and (e) the cost to public funds of each reception. [34439]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The programme of events at No. 10 is designed to give access to as many people as possible and includes regular children's tea parties and receptions for a wide cross-section of the community.

  Over 280 official and charity receptions have been held at 10 Downing Street since 1 May 1997. I have placed a list in the Library.
  1446W
  Total costs are not available in the form requested. However, the total cost to my office for all official entertainment at 10 Downing Street and Chequers was as follows:

  1997–98: £43,777;

  1998–99: £53,639;

  1999–00: £60,652;

  2000–01: £72,790.

  The costs of the charity receptions are funded by the charities involved.

  As was the practice under previous administrations, I have hosted a number of political events at Downing Street. The costs of these were met by the Labour Party.

  Official and charity receptions hosted by the Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair

  Date

  1997

  13 May

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Eve of Session

  120

  14 June

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Trooping the Colour

  100

  26 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  40

  2 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  15 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  22 July

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Design Industry

  150

  30 July

  Prime Minister

  Reception—General

  200

  8 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  15 October

  Prime Minister

  Reception—General

  200

  30 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  27 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  10 December

  Prime Minister

  Reception—General

  200

  18 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  1998

  29 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/ Children

  40

  11 February

  Prime Minister

  Reception—New Deal

  n/a

  9 March

  Prime Minister

  Reception—New Designers' Competition

  n/a

  26 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  26 March

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Voluntary Sector

  200

  1 April

  Prime Minister

  Tea—Women's Magazine Editors

  n/a

  6 April

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Eur Football Leaders

  n/a

  23 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  27 April

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Crime and Drugs

  200

  1 May

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  13 May

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  21 May

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Education

  200

  2 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  10 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  13 June

  Prime Minister

  Trooping the Colour

  120

  18 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  1 July

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Health

  200

  2 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  23 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  8 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Reception—Women Magazine Editors

  n/a

  17 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  6 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  21 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  27 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  17 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  18 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  23 November

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Eve of Session

  120

  30 November

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Development

  n/a

  2 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  8 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  14 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  1447W

  Official and charity receptions hosted by the Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair

  Date

  1999

  27 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Work & Leisure

  100

  28 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  28 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  9 February

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Education

  200

  15 February

  Prime Minister

  Technology College Trusts

  n/a

  18 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  24 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—Readers of Women's Weekly

  30

  23 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  29 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—Gold start Awards

  n/a

  10 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  11 March

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Millennium Lecture on Science

  100

  11 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  15 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  15 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  19 April

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Regional Press Association

  80

  11 May

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  13 May

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  20 May

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  27 May

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Wealth Creation

  100

  12 June

  Prime Minister

  Trooping the Colour

  120

  14 June

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Older People

  100

  15 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  23 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  5 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  7 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  15 July

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Education

  100

  19 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  14 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  20 September

  Prime Minister

  Reception—British Fashion Council

  500

  13 October

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Arts & Culture

  100

  27 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  4 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  8 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  16 November

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Eve of Session

  100

  18 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  25 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  18 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  8 December

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Britishness

  100

  13 December

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Armed Forces

  350

  15 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—Women's Own Children of Courage

  30

  16 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea MP's/Children

  70

  2000

  17 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  22 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Emergency Services

  200

  25 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  2 February

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Rural Community

  200

  7 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  24 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  28 February

  Prime Minister

  Reception—NHS Doctors

  200

  29 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  1 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  27

  2 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  6 March

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Health

  100

  14 March

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Top 50 Schools

  80

  15 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  22 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  27 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  29 March

  Prime Minister

  Tea—Daily Star Awards

  20

  30 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  10 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  1448W

  Official and charity receptions hosted by the Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair

  Date

  12 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  17 April

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Press Lobby

  100

  10 May

  Prime Minister

  Reception—UK/Caribbean

  200

  15 June

  Prime Minister

  Tea—Police Bravery Awards

  110

  17 June

  Prime Minister

  Trooping the Colour

  130

  28 June

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Primary Care Sector

  200

  25 July

  Prime Minister

  Tea—Football Foundation Launch

  40

  13 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  3 October

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Student Press

  30

  4 October

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Better Buildings

  200

  17 October

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Museum of TV & Radio

  100

  1 November

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Ethnic Press

  75

  8 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  9 November

  Prime Minister

  Charity

  30

  14 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  23 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  4 December

  Prime Minister

  Reception— Environment

  100

  5 December

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Eve of Session

  105

  12 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—Women's Own Children of Courage

  28

  14 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  ?

  2001

  9 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Regional Editors

  100

  11 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Olympic Games

  100

  22 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Floods

  200

  25 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  40

  6 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  15 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  26 February

  Prime Minister

  Reception—NHS Doctors

  200

  27 February

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Radio Academy's News

  175

  28 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  8 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  12 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  14 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  26 March

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Childcare

  150

  28 March

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  4 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  5 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—1951 Women European Tour

  17

  20 April

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—World Travel Leaders

  65

  22 May

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  13 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  16 June

  Prime Minister

  Trooping the Colour

  120

  19 June

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Eve of Session

  100

  25 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  26 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  27 June

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  3 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  5 July

  Prime Minister

  Tea—Police Bravery Awards

  120

  9 July

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  23 July

  Prime Minister

  Reception—NHS

  200

  10 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  17 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  19 September

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  24 September

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Policing

  200

  24 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  29 October

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Higher

  200

  31 October

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  1 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  56

  8 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  1449W

  Official and charity receptions hosted by the Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair

  Date

  8 November

  Prime Minister

  Reception—President of Pakistan

  40

  14 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  19 November

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Women's Media

  70

  20 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  27 November

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  4 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  6 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  40

  7 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—MP's/Children

  70

  10 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—Women in Public Services

  30

  12 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Tea—Children of Courage

  30

  17 December

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Africa

  100

  18 December

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  50

  2002

  9 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Regional Newspaper Editors

  80

  17 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Faith Community

  180

  21 January

  Prime Minister

  Reception—Communications Industry

  200

  22 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  30 January

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  4 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  5 February

  Mrs. Blair

  Charity

  40

  Mr. Alastair Campbell
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish(a) the latest functions and (b) the salary of Mr. Alastair Campbell; and what changes have been made to them following the announcement of his new role relating to the Central Office of Information. [37158]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 20021]: Alastair Campbell is appointed under Article 3(3) of the Civil Service Order in Council. He is responsible for Communication and Strategy and in that role covers the work of the Press Office, the Strategic Communications Unit and the Research and Information Unit.

  The Cabinet Office have already announced that following the quinquennial review of the Central Office of Information the Chief Executive of the COI will have an additional role as the Government's chief adviser on marketing communications and information campaigns and works with the Director of Communications and Strategy at No. 10. This will strengthen the coordination and planning of departmental publicity strategies across Whitehall and changes should be in place by 1 April 2002. The Chief Executive of the COI remains fully accountable to Cabinet Office Ministers for the work of the COI, and they remain accountable to Parliament. Individual departments remain responsible for individual campaigns.

  Under the terms of the Order in Council Alastair Campbell is not restricted to an advisory role and is allowed to direct and manage permanent civil servants. On pay, I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 850W.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London he made in 2001 giving for each trip(a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance was used on the choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38160]

  The Prime Minister
  In 2001, I have undertaken the following official visits within the UK outside of London.

  Date

  Destination

  9 January

  Bristol

  25-26 January

  Teeside

  1-2 February

  Kettering, Birmingham

  18 February

  Glasgow

  1-2 March

  Gloucester, Swansea

  7-9 March

  Aldergrove, Inverness

  14-15 March

  Teeside

  22-24 March

  Carlisle, Exeter

  27 March

  Worcester

  30 March

  Carlisle, Newcastle

  3 April

  Colchester

  3 April

  Cardiff

  6 April

  Leeds/Bradford

  11 April

  Exeter/Torquay

  18-19 April

  Teeside

  26 April

  Carlisle, Cumbria, East Midlands

  4 May

  Teeside

  22 June

  Teeside

  26-27 July

  Carlisle, Penrith, Keswick, Hull

  1-2 September

  Edinburgh, Aberdeen

  7-8 September

  Teeside

  11 September

  Brighton

  30 October

  Bristol, Cardiff

  5 November

  Birmingham

  22-23 November

  Birmingham, Teeside

  6 December

  Reading

  10 December

  Essex

  20-21 December

  Teeside

  My visits covered a range of matters including health, education, foot and mouth disease and tourism.

  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, Travel by Ministers.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by him in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance was used on the choice of mode of travel for such visits. [38161]

  The Prime Minister
  Lists of overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 during the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 were placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report on 20 July 2001, column 467W. The list for the period I April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set

  1451W
  out in chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, Travel by Ministers.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his office in each of the last four years. [38925]

  The Prime Minister
  My office does not have an in-house canteen.

  For the total cost to my Office for all official entertainment at 10 Downing Street and Chequers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) today at column 1444W.

  Mr. Martin Sixsmith
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will initiate an inquiry into the conduct of Sir Richard Mottram in relation to Mr. Martin Sixsmith. [38447]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Sir Richard Mottram has already provided a detailed account of his involvement in matters relating to Mr. Martin Sixsmith.

  United Nations
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for UK relations with the United Nations. [38500]

  The Prime Minister
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).

  No. 10 Delivery Unit
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of those in the No. 10 Delivery Unit, who are responsible for overseeing the work in the areas of(a) transport, (b) health, (c) crime and asylum and (d) education. [38405]

  The Prime Minister
  The Delivery Unit reports to me under the day to day supervision of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald, and is headed by Michael Barber. The unit is working closely with the Treasury and other Departments to ensure that the Government achieve their delivery priorities during this Parliament across the key areas of public service: health, education, crime, asylum and transport. At 1 January 2002,17 full-time and three part-time civil servants were employed in the Delivery Unit, and no special advisers.

  Business Contracts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister, (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, Ref 36802,Official Report, column 701W, under what provision of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information he has declined to say on how many occasions in the past two years he has written to foreign Governments about the award of contracts to companies with British interests. [39032]
  1452W
  (2) on how many occasions in the past two years he has written to the Prime Minister of Romania about the award of contracts to companies with British interests. [39039]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer for the reasons I explained. 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) if he will name the person or persons responsible for drafting the letter to the Romanian Prime Minister regarding LNM-Ispat International's contract for the SIDEX steel plant; [39041]

  (2) how many drafts were made of the letter to the Romanian Prime Minister, Adrian Nastasi, regarding LNMI-spat International's contract for the SIDEX steel plant; [39042]

  (3) on whose advice and authority the letter to the Romanian Prime Minister regarding LNM-Ispat International's contract for the SIDEX steel plant was (a) drafted, (b) signed and (c) sent. [39040]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610-11W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister on behalf of how many companies(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) on the Isle of Wight and (c) in Leicestershire he has written to overseas leaders seeking support for investment contracts since 1997. [39333]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on Thursday 14 February,Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Hammond Inquiry
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason he decided to re-open Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry into the Hinduja passport affair; how many representations, and from whom, he received to do so; and when the first such representation was received. [39334]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on Tuesday 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 864W.

DEFENCE

  Joint Force Harrier
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his future plans are for Joint Force Harrier; and if he will make a statement. [40173]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have agreed an investment plan to take forward Joint Force Harrier (JFH) into the era of Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) and Future Carriers.
  1453W
  The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) included a commitment to establish JFH, building on the success of Royal Navy and RAF Harrier aircraft operations in joint carrier air groups. This was a radical initiative to form a truly joint, flexible and deployable force optimised for the demands of the new strategic environment. JFH currently operates two aircraft types—Sea Harrier FA2, an air defence aircraft flown by RN personnel, and Harrier GR7, a ground attack/reconnaissance aircraft flown by RAF personnel. The plan has been for both the Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7 to be replaced by a common aircraft type. This is currently designated the FJCA with an In Service Date of 2012.

  Work has been taking place on a migration plan to take forward JFH into the era of the FJCA and the future aircraft carrier. We have concluded that Joint Force Harrier should migrate to an all Harrier GR force, maximising investment in one aircraft type. It is planned to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 standard to ensure a credible expeditionary offensive capability until the aircraft leaves service. To achieve this, aircraft systems will be enhanced to extend their lives and give the Harrier the capability to operate with smart weapons.

  Given the Harrier GR9's ability in future to employ smart weapons world-wide by day and night from land and sea and the increased emphasis on carrier based offensive air-power in the SDR and confirmed by the emerging conclusions of our post-11 September work, the Sea Harrier FA2 will be withdrawn earlier than planned, by 2006. The Sea Harrier entered service in 1979, and will start to become obsolescent as this decade progresses.

  As a consequence of its earlier withdrawal from service, the planned relocation of Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft from RNAS Yeovilton to RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering in 2003 will not now proceed. The relocation of RN personnel will go ahead but slightly later than currently planned, over the period 2004 to 2006. By 1 April 2007, JFH will have migrated to an all Harrier GR9 force by roughly equal numbers of RN and RAF personnel. These proposals will be subject to consultation with the Trade Unions in the normal way.

  This plan will significantly enhance the offensive strike capability of our aircraft carriers pending introduction to service of the FJCA.

  Nimrod MRA4
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has changed his procurement plans for the Nimrod MRA4. [40174]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Nimrod MRA4 will replace the Nimrod MR2 as the RAF's new maritime patrol aircraft Recent work on future maritime reconnaissance capabilities has shown that the operational tasks of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft can be carried out with a smaller fleet than originally envisaged. This will allow us to reduce the number of aircraft on order from 21 to 18. This revised approach will allow the RAF to meet all the tasks for which the aircraft is being procured while delivering better value for money.

  This judgment reflects a number of factors. The submarine threat, while still prevalent worldwide, has not developed as expected when the production contract
  1454W
  was signed in 1996. Moreover, the Nimrod MRA4 will also offer a markedly greater capability compared to the MR2 it succeeds, through improved aircraft and sensor performance. Finally, discussions with BAE Systems, the prime contractor, have identified potential in-service support options to maximise aircraft availability for operational tasking.

  The Defence Procurement Agency is working with BAE Systems on an incremental approach to delivery for Nimrod MRA4. This includes the acceptance of aircraft in two steps. An initial capability will be provided by the time of first contracted aircraft delivery in August 2004 with the full specification being met by the time of the seventh aircraft delivery and entry into service which is contracted for March 2005. The reduced order will affect only the last three aircraft of the previously planned production run.

  In accordance with the partnership principle of Smart Acquisition, agreement has been reached with BAE. Systems to maximise the financial benefits to the Ministry of Defence of this reduced order while incentivising the company appropriately. The reduction in procurement costs will be agreed in detail with the company. On the basis of current assumptions, the smaller fleet is expected to reduce support costs alone by some £360 million.

  AWE
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British universities have research contracts with AWE; and if he will list them. [32714]

  Dr. Moonie
  AWE plc currently have research contracts with a total of 24 British universities. Confidentiality clauses in these contracts make it necessary for AWE to seek confirmation from each university that they are willing to have their names released. 21 of the universities have so consented and are listed below:

  University of Birmingham

  University of Bristol

  University of Cambridge

  Cardiff University

  University of Dundee

  University of Glasgow

  Herriot-Watt University

  Royal Holloway University of London

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  University of Liverpool

  University College of London

  Loughborough University Consultants Ltd

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  University of Nottingham

  University of Reading

  University of Southampton

  University of Surrey

  University of Warwick

  University of Bangor Wales

  University of York

  Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of the publications issued by the Central Corporate Communications Division in each of the last four years, what was(a) the circulation, (b) the cost and (c) the purpose of each. [34434]

  Dr. Lewis Moonie
  The information requested for the main publications produced by our central corporate communication division, and its predecessors, where known, is shown in the following tables.

  Financial year 1998–99

  Publication

  Cost (£)1

  Circulation (numbers)2

  Purpose

  Strategic Defence Review

  71,8801

  10,000

  Published outcome of the Strategic Defence Review

  Defence Booklets

  55,988

  122,000

  Information booklets on a variety of defence subjects

  Annual Report of Defence Activity 1997–98

  19,051

  75,000

  Reports defence activity

  "Sanctuary"

  24,194

  24,000

  Annual publication describing MoD conservation activity

  Defence Factsheets

  11,991

  120,000 (total)

  A series of folded A4-leaflets giving general information on a specific defence issue

  Ministry of Defence Performance Report 1997–98

  4,2273

  510

  Reports on MoD performance in the previous year

  "Focus"

  167,7914

  55,000 (per month)

  Monthly in-house newspaper, for MoD staff

  Financial year1999–2000

  Publication

  Cost (£)1

  Circulation (numbers)2

  Purpose

  Defence White Paper 1999

  26,0521

  5,000

  To inform Parliament and the public of defence activity and policies

  Defence Annual Report and Mission Booklets

  17,514

  70,000

  Describe defence mission, and reports defence activity

  Defence Booklets

  25,373

  15,000 (total)

  Information booklets on a variety of defence subjects

  Defence Factsheets

  47,868

  436,700 (total)

  A series of folded A4-leaflets giving general information on a specific defence issue

  Factsheets (in Welsh language)

  8,439

  28,000 (total)

  As above, in Welsh language

  Large text/braille/ audio material

  24,155

  2,100 large print booklets 400 audio cassettes 1,200 braille booklets (totals)

  Provision of defence information to people who are visually impaired

  "Sanctuary"

  21,920

  24,000

  Annual publication describing MoD conservation activity

  "Focus"

  174,3294

  55,000 (per month)

  Monthly in-house newspaper, for MoD staff

  1456W

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Publication

  Cost (£)1

  Circulation (numbers)2

  Purpose

  Ministry of Defence Performance Report 1998–99

  7.10455

  600

  Reports on MoD performance in the previous year

  Financial year 2000–01

  Publication

  Cost (£)1

  Circulation (numbers)2

  Purpose

  Defence Factsheets

  32,832

  390,500 (total)

  A series of folded A4-leaflets giving general information on a specific defence issue

  Factsheets (in Welsh language)

  10,480

  32,000

  As above, in Welsh language

  Defence Booklets

  38,983

  35,900

  Information booklets on a variety of defence subjects

  Kosovo Lessons from the Crisis

  2,5003

  5,000

  Command paper on Kosovo campaign

  Ministry of Defence Performance Report 1999–2000

  6,803.403

  800

  Reports on MoD performance in the previous year

  "Focus"

  161,9504

  55,000 (per month)

  Monthly in-house newspaper, for MoD staff

  "Sanctuary"

  19,092

  24,000

  Annual publication describing MoD conservation activity

  Financial year 2001–025

  Publication

  Cost (£)1

  Circulation (numbers)2

  Purpose

  "Defence Matters"

  15,626

  8,000

  Colour brochure explaining range of defence activities

  Defence booklets

  21,723

  10,500 (total)

  Information booklets on a variety of defence subjects

  Defence Factsheets

  32,170

  153,700 (total)

  A series of folded A4-leaflets giving general information on a specific defence issue

  "Blue Book"

  5,588

  2,100

  Describes organisation and management of defence in the UK

  "Sanctuary"

  26,200

  24,000

  Annual publication describing MoD conservation activity

  "Focus"

  105,2694

  55,000 (per month)

  Monthly in-house newspaper, for MoD staff

  Ministry of Defence Performance Report 2000–01

  12,6103

  650

  Report to Parliament of MoD performance in the previous year

  SDR New Chapter Public Discussion paper, & leaflet

  21,800 (estimated)

  10.500 Discussion papers 139,000 leaflets

  Discussion paper on the New Chapter on terrorism

  Notes:

  1 Cost figures consist of printing and, where appropriate, an element of design costs and/or distribution.

  2 Exact circulation numbers are difficult to obtain without incurring disproportionate costs. Figures shown (other than for "Command" publications) are numbers printed.

  3 Costs shown for "Command" publications are only for the copies required by the MoD, and represent a discount on the normal Stationery Office price.
  1457W
  4 Costs shown for "Focus" do not include the substantial income generated from advertising revenue.

  5 Figures for the 2001–02 Financial Year show spend as at 15 February 2002.

  MOD Sites (Security)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the budget of department bodies to meet security needs following 11 September. [35610]

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

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role is played by(a) the armed forces and (b) MDP in protecting MoD sites; and if he will make a statement. [38070]

  Dr. Moonie
  The role of the armed services and the Ministry of Defence police in protecting MoD sites is to protect life, to protect MoD property, assets and interests, and to provide an appropriate interface with the public.

  The decision as to which form of guard force is required (armed or unarmed, military or civilian, and with or without constabulary powers) is determined at local level, to best match the prevailing requirements, following central regulations and guidance.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers have been given to the MDP for guarding MoD sites; and if he will make a statement. [38069]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Police derive their constabulary powers from the MOD Police Act 1987 which they use in policing MOD sites. A number of limited extensions, to MDP powers, were included within the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

  Cluster Bomb
  Fiona Mctaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment of ground conditions is undertaken before deployment of cluster bombs; and what alternative weapon is deployed where ground conditions might result in an unacceptably higher failure rate. [37534]

  Mr. Ingram
  Decisions on the most appropriate weapon for use in attack take into account a wide variety of factors, consistent with our obligations under international law. These factors include the nature of the target, the weapons available to engage the target, and the conditions prevailing at the time of the attack. Specific ground conditions in the location of an attack, the effect of those conditions on failure rates, and the potential impact of a particular failure rate are factors that cannot normally be known by those making the decisions. Using weapons that are not the most appropriate for a target would reduce the likelihood of achieving the military objective and increase the risk of collateral damage. There are often no alternative weapons to cluster bombs that would avoid these negative consequences.
  1458W

  Royal Ordnance Factories and Naval Dockyards (Security)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in security have been made at the Royal Ordnance factories and naval dockyards following 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [38061]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security arrangements at Royal Ordnance sites are a matter for Royal Ordnance, which is a private company subject to licensing by the Health and Safety Executive and local Home Department police forces. Those Royal Ordnance sites that hold Ministry of Defence classified information are required to protect it in accordance with regulations set out in the Manual of Protective Security produced by the Cabinet Office. Their compliance with these standards is monitored by Government Security Advisers from the Security Service. It is for the Home Secretary to comment on the security of the Royal Ordnance sites in relation to the terrorist threat and to the protection of classified information.

  The security of the commercial operations at the naval dockyards is similarly primarily the responsibility of the companies concerned. In the case of Devonport and Portsmouth the commercial operations are conducted inside the perimeters of the two naval bases, and the operators therefore benefit indirectly from the physical security measures against the terrorist and other threats put in place by the Defence Logistic Organisation. The situation at Rosyth is different, in that the commercial site is outside the naval base; however, under the terms of an MOU with the contractor the MOD retains the right to insist on such additional security measures as it considers necessary to protect MOD assets and personnel. This includes the provision of armed security guarding to protect the lives of Service personnel accommodated temporarily on the commercial site. Security at naval bases has been reviewed as part of an overall survey of security of the Defence Logistic Organisation estate. While it is MOD policy not to comment on detailed matters of security, 1 can confirm that the level of security at naval bases is considered appropriate.

  Integrated Biological Detention System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the trials of the new Integrated Biological Detection System will cost; and if he will make a statement. [38284]

  Dr. Moonie
  The estimated cost of the trials at Dstl of the new Integrated Biological Detection System is about £1 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what companies are involved in the initial concept of trials being run for a maritime version of the new integrated Biological Detection System; and if he will make a statement. [38283]

  Dr. Moonie
  The trials, which were held in October last year, evaluated the potential technology options for the Maritime Biological Detection System.
  1459W
  The main industrial participants were: Graseby Dynamics Ltd of Watford, together with BIRAL of Portishead; Jasmin Simtech of Nottingham, together with Bruker Daltronics, Leipzig; General Dynamics Canada.

  Fast Jet Technology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to obtain laser and missile approach warners part of the Fast Jet Directed Infrared Countermeasures Laser System Technology; and if he will make a statement. [38229]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is currently funding a Technology Demonstration Programme into Directed Infrared Counter Measures for fast jets. This involves risk reduction work on technology to enable the acquisition and tracking of approaching missiles and the deployment of appropriate laser jamming measures. The programme does not include work on a laser beam illumination warning sensor.

  US Bases (Security)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the security risk to US bases in the UK since 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [38064]

  Dr. Moonie
  Security at Ministry of Defence bases is kept under constant review. It is MOD policy not to discuss detailed matters of security, or to disclose details of threat assessments.

  Unmanned Air Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need for a carrier-based medium altitude/endurance unmanned air vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [38285]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decisions have yet been taken on the utility and cost effectiveness of unmanned air vehicles as part of the future carrier air group, but they remain under consideration to meet a number of requirements.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what training is given to MDP reserves; and if he will make a statement; [38067]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on its police reserves. [38066]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no Ministry of Defence Police reserves, although there is an MDP Operational Support Unit (OSU) of fifty police officers based at MDP Headquarters at Wethersfield in Essex. In addition to receiving normal police training OSU officers are trained to provide teams for rope access, Incendiary Explosive Device searches, confined space search, chemical, biological radiological and nuclear response, personal protection for VIPs and public order duties.
  1460W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the chain of command for MOD police deployed on US bases in the UK since 11 September 2001 is; and if he will make a statement. [38062]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Senior Ministry of Defence Police Officer at a US base remains responsible to the Chief Constable in respect of his units' constabulary duties, through the Operational Common Unit Commander. The US Station Commander is responsible for the Security of the site, and exercises day-to-day operational control over the MDP under delegated authority from the Chief Constable, MDP.

  Foreign Military Staff (UK Training)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military staff from(a) Macedonia, (b) Bulgaria, (c) Slovakia, (d) Slovenia, (e) Albania, (f) Romania, (g) Estonia, (h) Latvia and (i) Lithuania have been involved in training in the UK in the last five years; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [38055]

  Mr. Ingram
  Approximate numbers of personnel involved in training in the UK through the Outreach programme during the last three years are given below (figures are not held centrally prior 1999). These figures may include some civilian personnel working for the Defence Ministries of the countries referred to, as it is not possible in all cases to differentiate them.

  Personnel from countries covered by the Outreach programme come to the UK for a wide variety of training, ranging from Staff courses lasting up to one year, to seminars and short educational visits for as little as three days. Included in these figures is Arms Control training, which in some cases ("Open Skies") involves the use of an aircraft, at high cost.

  Indicative costs are shown for 2001 only as detailed costings are not held for previous years. Places on yearlong courses, which by their nature are expensive, are allocated between countries on rotation and those countries shown below with higher costs are likely to have benefited from at least one such course and in some cases from "Open Skies" training during 2001. Not all costs involved in the activities covered in this answer fall to centrally controlled funds (i.e. support to individuals while visiting units), and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Numbers

  Numbers

  Numbers

  Cost £K

  Macedonia

  20

  27

  17

  126

  Bulgaria

  57

  51

  52

  300

  Slovakia

  70

  73

  46

  250

  Slovenia

  50

  37

  29

  131

  Albania

  10

  27

  14

  43

  Romania

  66

  85

  56

  475

  Estonia

  36

  18

  24

  55

  Latvia

  28

  17

  20

  190

  Lithuania

  31

  20

  19

  94

  These activities form part of the Outreach programme in central and eastern Europe which, in turn, is part of the wider Defence Diplomacy mission. Outreach contributes to international stability by assisting countries in the region to establish

  1461W
  democratically accountable, cost-effective armed forces capable of contributing both to national and regional security and, increasingly, to international security through participation in peace support operations.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been saved by Smart Procurement since its inception in 1998; how much it is projected to save over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [38280]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 72W.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Numbers

  Cost £K

  Numbers

  Cost £K

  Numbers

  Cost £K

  Slovakia

  2

  75

  1

  120

  5

  154

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  3

  200

  1

  125

  Bulgaria

  4

  63

  1

  78

  2

  164

  These deployments form part of the Outreach programme in central and eastern Europe which, in turn, is part of the wider Defence Diplomacy mission. Outreach contributes to international stability by assisting countries in the region to establish democratically accountable, cost-effective armed forces capable of contributing both to national and regional security and, increasingly, to international security through participation in peace support operations.

  Not all personnel taking part in Outreach activities are captured in the annually published figures. The inclusion of personnel engaged in one-off, short duration activities would distort the overall picture.

  There are Defence Attaches in the British Embassies in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Slovakia, all of whom have support staff. They are also not included.

  In addition to Outreach deployments, the UK contributed some 2,000 personnel to NATO's Task Force Harvest, which was deployed to Macedonia between 23 August and 25 September 2001. The projected cost for operations in Macedonia for the Financial Year 2001–02 is £8.7 million.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the British Armed Forces are deployed as at 1 February. [38508]

  Mr. Ingram
  The latest available figures are for deployment of UK Regular Forces as at 1 January 2002.

  All services

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  United Kingdom

  165,206

  37,948

  79,874

  47,384

  Continental Europe

  25,132

  372

  23,041

  1,719

  Cyprus

  3,301

  7

  2,149

  1,145

  Gibraltar

  402

  229

  71

  102

  Deployments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's staff have been involved in deployments to(a) Slovakia, (b) Macedonia and (c) Bulgaria in the last five years; at what costs; and if he will make a statement. [38059]

  Mr. Ingram
  Numbers of military and civilian Ministry of Defence personnel deployed through the Outreach programme to Slovakia, Macedonia and Bulgaria during the last three years are given below (figures are not held centrally prior to this date). The figures for 1999–00 and 2000–01 were previously published in MOD Performance Reports (Cm 5000 Annex G and Cm5920 Annex H). They include members of visiting training and advisory teams and resident in-country advisers. The costs shown are approximate.

  All Services

  Naval Services

  Army

  RAF

  Other Mediterranean, Near East and Gulf

  3,679

  1,257

  697

  1,725

  Far East

  290

  54

  212

  24

  Other locations

  6,045

  1,817

  3,177

  1,051

  Global Total

  204,055

  41,684

  109,221

  53,150

  Figures are for UK Regular Forces (including both Trained and Untrained personnel), and therefore exclude Gurkhas, Full Time Reserve personnel, the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, mobilised reservists and Naval Activated Reservists.

  C-17 Globemasters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C-17 Globemasters the armed forces own; whether Globemasters are deployed in Afghanistan; what plans he has for further purchase of the Globemaster; and if he will make a statement. [38281]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 72W, and on 7 February 2002, Official Report, column 1088W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  Framework Agreement
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects, if any have been designated Co-operative Armaments Programmes under the Six-Nation Framework Agreement. [38991]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. Whilst the harmonisation of military requirements is a specific part of the Framework Agreement, the work in this area is designed to examine the scope for meeting military requirements jointly. The intention is that this work should act as a
  1463W
  foundation for the establishment of potential cooperative armaments programmes, but it is too early to expect the Framework Agreement to have generated any such programmes at this stage of its implementation. However, it is also the intention that existing co-operative armaments programmes might benefit from work on the implementation of the Framework Agreement. An example of this is the proposed creation of a Global Export Licence to simplify the licensing process on co-operative programmes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 343W, ref. 24020, when he intends to write to the hon. Member; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [38821]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have written to the hon. Member today to explain the delay. My officials are continuing to compile the information requested and I will provide a substantive reply as quickly as possible. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Bases (Commercial Operations)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority about the suitability of RAF Lyneham for commercial airline operations. [38527]

  Mr. Ingram
  No discussions have taken place to date between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence about the suitability of RAF Lyneham for commercial airline operations, although such discussions will be part of the overall assessment process.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Richard Branson and executives of Virgin about the commercial future of RAF Brize Norton. [38526]

  Mr. Ingram
  No discussions have taken place between the Ministry of Defence and Mr. Richard Branson or other executives of Virgin about the commercial future of RAF Brize Norton.

  Average tour intervals

  Year (April to March)

  Royal Armoured Corps

  Royal Artillery

  Royal Engineers

  Royal Signals

  Infantry

  Royal Logistic Corps1

  1966–97

  25

  21

  12

  19

  21

  —

  1997–98

  19

  36

  17

  21

  22

  —

  1998–99

  30

  19

  24

  21

  27

  —

  1999–2000

  14

  25

  13

  10

  15

  30

  2000–01

  26

  42

  34

  24

  22

  30

  1 Not calculated until 1999–2000.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report written by Colonel Curran Snagge entitled "The Command Structure in the UK"
  1464W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the physical contours of RAF Lyneham conform to the CAA's safety requirements for commercial airline operations. [38528]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Lyneham is regulated by Ministry of Defence safety guidelines and not guidelines set out by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for civil airfields. However, the hon. Member will wish to be aware that I have directed that the issue of Civil Aviation Authority licensing of the three stations will be addressed as part on the on-going Strategic Review of RAF Lyneham, RAF St Mawgan and RAF Brize Norton.

  Army HQ
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 340W, when the final assessment of the costs of moving the Army's northern headquarters from York to Edinburgh will have been made; what increase there has been in the number of people working at Craigiehall and York; and what military reason there was for the move from York to Craigiehall. [38872]

  Mr. Ingram
  The final assessment of the costs of locating the Army's northern headquarters in Edinburgh should be completed in the early summer of this year. This work will also confirm manpower numbers but initial indications are that there has been an increase of some 170 at Craigiehall and of some 14 at York resulting from the move of headquarters, and the relocation of other organisations. The military judgements that led to the location of the headquarters in Edinburgh took into account a number of issues and were finely balanced. The conclusion was that the role of divisional headquarters could be discharged from either York or Edinburgh.

  Tours of Duty
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the units in the Army that have had an average interval between operational tours of(a) over 24 months and (b) under 24 months in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [38346]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the average interval between operational tours by individual arms/ corps covering the years 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  examining the move of the Army's northern headquarters from York to Edinburgh. [38529]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government's policy is on support for a further application to the EBRD by LNM Holdings for support for the takeover of Sidex Steel. [38845]

  Hilary Benn
  The EBRD exists to help restructure the economies of former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. We support all responsible projects that serve this purpose.

  The EBRD Board has not been approached with a specific proposal for a further loan to Ispat-Sidex. If a proposal is received we will consider it on its merits.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions took place between her Department and other departments regarding the Government's support for the loan application to the EBRD by LNM Holdings. [38846]

  Hilary Benn
  As is routine, DFID officials invited comments from other interested departments in preparing briefing. There were no discussions.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the reasons for the Government's support for the loan application to the EBRD by LNM Holdings. [38847]

  Hilary Benn
  The EBRD exists to help restructure the economies of former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. We support all responsible projects that serve this purpose.

  EBRD's loan to Ispat-Sidex is providing important support for Romania's economic reform and progress towards EC accession. The World Bank identified the privatisation of the company as a key requirement for economic reform in Romania.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years [38738].

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

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she 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, indicating in each case the value of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38740]

  Hilary Benn
  The information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  1466W

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the attack on a food aid distribution site in the village of Bien, Western Upper Nile region of Southern Sudan, on the distribution of food aid in that region. [38695]

  Hilary Benn
  The attack should not affect distribution of food aid in the region. The parties to the conflict in Sudan have agreed that they will not target humanitarian operations and they are, in any case, obliged under the Geneva Conventions not to target civilians. Something clearly went wrong in Bien on 20 February, and we have demanded an explanation from the Government of Sudan. In the meantime we expect that the World Food Programme will take extra care not to attempt to distribute food near areas where fighting is ongoing.

  Burkina Faso
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what action she is taking to improve human rights in Burkina Faso. [34652]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no resident representation in Burkina Faso, but our Embassy in Abidjan maintains regular contact with government, opposition and NGO representatives on human rights issues and raises our concerns with the government about the human rights situation. The UN Expert Panel Report on Liberia, published in October 2001, contained evidence that Burkina Faso was involved in arms shipments to Liberia in breach of UN sanctions. We have made clear to the Government of Burkina Faso that it should cease undermining UN sanctions by providing support for the regime of Charles Taylor in Liberia.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) representing the House of Commons Commission, how many complaints are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [38502]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  This is a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Long-term Sick Leave
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidelines he has published regarding the treatment of employees returning to work after long-term sick leave. [26916]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.
  1467W
  We do not publish guidelines for all employers regarding the treatment of employees returning after long-term sick leave.

  However, current policy is to encourage rehabilitation and/or redeployment of staff who have been long-term sick, and to initiate action to rehabilitate them back to work as early as possible. To this end, we are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Health and Safety Executive on job retention and rehabilitation pilots to test different health and employment strategies to help people with long-term sickness or disability to remain in their jobs.

  We have commissioned guidance for health and social services on promoting employment opportunities for people with mental health problems to meet the requirement of Standard One of the National Service Framework for mental health.

  As far as health and social services employees are concerned, guidance on treatment of staff returning from long-term sickness is part of "The Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues for NHS Staff" issued under the cover of HSC (98) 064 and also in "Managing Sickness Absence in the NHS" published through the Strategic HR Intelligence Networks in July 2000 and reissued in November 2001.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Torbay Borough Council. [40020]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Torbay Borough Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report identifies both strengths and weaknesses in the benefits services at Torbay. The Council is commended for good customer service. There are three offices that claimants can visit, telephone calls to the office are answered promptly and Torbay is currently revising its claim form in line with the BFI Model Claim Form.

  Inspectors found that backlogs of work were not being addressed and the time taken to process claims was very poor with only 45 per cent. being cleared within the 14-day target. These backlogs were also reducing the ability of the council to ensure that renewal claims were being assessed without a break in payment.

  The report finds that changes in circumstances which could lead to overpayment of benefit were not given sufficient priority by the benefits section. An experimental scheme for the sharing of information between the council, the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency on changes of clients' circumstances was identified as an excellent initiative.

  Inspectors considered there were weaknesses in all stages of dealing with overpayments and the report makes recommendations on tackling this issue. Since 1997 the debt owed to the council has increased by nearly £1 million.
  1468W
  The council's clear progress in developing a counter-fraud strategy, fully supported by members, was also recognised. Its process of verifying of claims for benefit was found to be up to the required standard. The report concludes that the fraud section would benefit from additional resources to build on the effective work that has already been undertaken.

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

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

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London Borough of Southwark. [40021]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of the London Borough of Southwark and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This follow-up inspection and report shows that the council has responded very positively to the findings of the first BFI report of June 1999 and that many recommendations have been implemented in full. Southwark also have ongoing projects to address many of the remaining recommendations. Inspectors found significant improvements in the quality of anti-fraud work and a reduction in the previous weaknesses in benefits administration.

  The report commends the work done to improve the verification of claims; on the process of making payments on account; and on procedural guidance for fraud and overpayment staff.

  At the time of the second inspection some problems remained to be addressed. These included the use of more than one type of claim form. Since the inspection, however, the council has introduced a new single form based on the BFI Model Claim Form.

  Inspectors found that there had been an improvement in the clearance time for claims. In 1999 only 20 per cent. of claims were cleared within the 14-day target. At the second inspection this was found to have improved to 52 per cent. Southwark should do more to ensure that all information is available when claims are first received.

  The report also found that the service to customers needed to be improved, in particular long delays for telephone callers. Southwark had recognised this poor level of service and has introduced a new telephone system.

  The large backlog of work, which in 1999 stood at 19,000 claims, had been reduced but at the time of the second inspection the council estimated that a backlog of 5,000 claims was outstanding. This is believed to have fallen further but the council did not have a formal plan to clear the remaining arrears.
  1469W
  The report notes that a comprehensive approach was being taken to training. It also recognises that the council has improved the liaison between benefits and fraud as well as with the Housing Department.

  Inspectors found that progress against BFI's recommendations in relation to overpayments of benefit had been slow. Further recommendations to improve effectiveness are made in this report.

  Significant improvement is noted in the quality of Southwark's fraud investigations. Preparation, record keeping and general file maintenance was found to be of a good standard and this was supported by a high standard of staff training. The 1999 BFI recommendation that the council review its anti-fraud strategy had been successfully implemented.

  The London Borough of Southwark is an excellent example of an authority responding positively and effectively to weaknesses identified by the BFI and thus providing a more secure and accurate benefits service to its community.

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

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

  Pickering Review
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the original scope was of the inquiry into pensions which he asked Mr. Alan Pickering to conduct for his Department; and whether and to what extent that scope has been modified. [38453]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pickering simplification review is a comprehensive review of private pensions legislation. It will propose a package of options for simplifying the regulatory framework, consistent with the maintenance of proper protection for pension members. A consultation document for the review was published on 19 October 2001 and is available in the Library. This included the terms of reference of the review, which have not been changed.

  Pensions
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure that growth in pensions is linked to growth in the economy. [35755]

  Mr. McCartney
  The basic state pension remains the foundation for income in retirement. Increases announced for last April and next in the basic state pension have given single pensioners £2.10 more than an earnings link would have given them and £3.35 more for couples. We have given a guarantee that the basic state pension will be increased by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and £160 for couples in 2003–04, and in future years by 2.5 per cent. or the increase in the September Retail Prices Index, whichever is the higher.
  1470W
  We are also committed to increasing the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in line with earnings. Around 2 million less-well-off pensioners benefit from this. The income guarantee element of Pension Credit will replace MIG from October 2003 and this will be uprated in line with earnings throughout this Parliament. Around half of all pensioner households will be entitled to it and will be better off because they will gain, year-on-year, a larger increase in their state support than they would receive from an earnings link in the basic state pension.

  By April 2002, as a result of this Government's policies compared with the 1997 system, an average pensioner household will be £840 a year better off and around 1.8 million of the poorest pensioner households will be over £1000 a year better off.

  Doctors' Handwriting
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what delays were caused in the hearings of appeals of disability claims to the tribunal service owing to the illegibility of doctors' handwriting in(a) 1992 and (b) 1997; and what the most recent available figures are for each health authority in England. [38335]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34160]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department's information systems do not allow the cost of accountancy services to be isolated separately. These costs are contained within a wider Professional Services heading and could not be isolated without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 145W, on Fair Trade goods, if he will review during Fair Trade Fortnight the amount of fairly traded goods used in his Department. [35452]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department obtains the majority of fair trade goods it uses from outsourced services, for example catering. It is our policy to consider ethical factors throughout our supply chain and we will review the use of Fair Trade goods with our suppliers during Fair Trade Fortnight.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the research his Department has conducted on the impact of the New Deal for Lone Parents on the employment rate for lone parents; and if he will place copies of this research in the Library. [34889]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  "NDLP Evaluation: A Quantitative Survey of Lone Parents on Income Support" was published in November 2001 and is
  1471W
  available in the Library. For earlier research reports 1 refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 537W.

  Employment Zone (South Tyneside)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the employment zone in South Tyneside in reducing unemployment. [34560]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Action Team for Jobs in South Tyneside is helping tackle joblessness in the area. The Team is performing well. In its first full year of operation, the Team worked with 688 disadvantaged jobless people, helping 333 (48 per cent.) of them into jobs.Source: Department for Work and Pensions Management Information.

  Disability Employment Advisers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the number of Jobcentres for which each disability employment adviser is responsible, and the procedures that are in place for dealing with cover during times of(a) sickness and (b) agreed absence; and if he will make a statement. [37584]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Employment Service aims to provide a high quality service to disabled people and their employers. In order to deliver this service we have in place a network of around 650 specialist disability employment advisers.

  Information on which Jobcentres each disability employment adviser has responsibility for is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The procedure to cover both unplanned and agreed absences is normally that another member of disability service staff will carry out pre-arranged, priority work such as interviews with clients. If a disability service team member of staff is not available, procedures are in place to ensure that urgent advice can be sought from an experienced adviser where necessary.

  Industrial Action (Jobcentre Plus)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days will have been lost to industrial action since September 2001 as a result of the action taken by members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. [32648]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]Some 217,000 days have been lost to strike action by members of the Public and Commercial Services Union in the Department since September 2001 up to and including 31 January 2002.

  Three quarters of the combined staff of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service remained at work during the second two days of national strike action on 28 and 29 January.
  1472W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants have had personal adviser consultations postponed as a result of industrial action undertaken by Jobcentre Plus staff. [32640]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This information is not available.

  Assaults (Benefits Staff)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's policy is for dealing with claimants who(a) verbally and (b) physically attack staff in Benefits Agency, Employment Service and Jobcentre Plus offices. [32650]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Ministers and Senior Management have made clear that we will not tolerate threats, abuse, actual or attempted assaults on our staff in the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and Jobcentre Plus. Our staff are public servants who strive to give a quality service.

  The overwhelming majority of people who use our offices behave well, but we are not prepared to allow a small minority of violent or abusive people to deflect us from achieving the outstanding service levels for which we are aiming.

  Our clear policy is not to tolerate abusive or violent behaviour. People who act in this way will be asked to leave our offices. We will not hesitate to involve the Police; to deny abusive and violent people future access to our offices; and, where appropriate, to prosecute.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many physical assaults there have been in the Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder Clusters since their establishment in September 2001; how many assaults there have been in offices with screened areas; and if he will make a statement. [32758]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Benefits Agency staff receive training for the specific roles they undertake and will continue to do so in the organisations that succeed it. Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service will come into being from April 2002.

  During the design and development of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders, the safety of staff has been of paramount importance. All staff have received training for the specific roles they undertake and staff dealing with the public have been trained in preventing and calming difficult situations.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide additional training for Benefits Agency staff to help them deal with individual threats. [32970]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Benefits Agency staff receive training for the specific roles they undertake and will continue to do so in the organisations that succeed it. Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service will come into being from April 2002.

  During the design and development of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders, the safety of staff has been of paramount importance. All staff have received training

  1473W
  for the specific roles they undertake and staff dealing with the public have been trained in preventing and calming difficult situations.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are taken to assess the number of entrants to the New Deal for Young People who are functionally(a) illiterate and (b) innumerate on (i) entering and (ii) leaving the Gateway Period of the New Deal; and how many such people are on the New Deal. [25987]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New Deal personal advisers follow a clear screening and assessment process to ensure young people requiring help with basic skills, such as literacy and numeracy, are offered assistance to meet their needs.

  As part of the initial interview with people entering the New Deal, personal advisors ask questions designed to establish whether the young person has any potential basic skills needs. If a possible need is identified, the young person is referred for independent assessment through a Basic Skills Agency test. Young people are then offered basic skills help in line with the assessment outcome. Following the basic skills provision, personal advisers keep track of the young person's improvements and discuss with them the most appropriate method of meeting any further needs.

  Information on those requiring help with basic skills has been collected since April 2001. It does not differentiate between literacy and numeracy. Between April and November 2001, 4,410 young people attended provision designed to address their basic skills needs. 2,854 of these were within the New Deal gateway. Information on the outcomes of basic skills provision is not available.

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Harwich constituency are in the New Deal programme; and how many were placed in employment following their participation in the scheme. [30980]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information at constituency level is not available for the New Deal for Disabled People and the New Deal for Partners. The available information is in the table:

  New Deal

  Participating as at end November 2001

  Placed into employment

  Young People

  55

  586

  25 plus

  55

  68

  Lone Parents

  177

  201

  50 plus*

  71

  143

  *Figures are to the end of December 2001.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time is that the Head of his Department has recommended since May 1474W
  1997 between a special adviser leaving his Department and taking up outside employment; and if he will make a statement. [28913]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to him on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 594W.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32803].

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Monthly figures for all Departments would be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Treasury has published full, financial outturns for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cm 5101). Provisional financial year outturns for 2000–01 have been published in Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn (Cm5243).

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23799]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W.

  IT Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the costs of RFR4 Modernising Welfare Delivery are in respect of information technology, computerisation and on-line technology; and how much of these costs are outsourced. [31522]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The costs contained in RFR4 Modernising Welfare Delivery are all considered to be for information technology computerisation and on-line technology; in as much they cover all modernisation projects funded from the welfare modernisation fund. The costs contained in RFR4 for the financial year 2001–02 are:

  £ million

  Running Costs

  467

  Capital

  88

  Total

  555

  The portion of these costs that has been outsourced (based on current project forecasts of costs of external suppliers for this financial year), are:

  £ million

  Running Costs

  252

  Capital

  88

  Total

  340

  1475W

  Unemployment (St. Helens, South)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the unemployed in St. Helens, South have been unemployed for a year or more(a) this year, (b) in 1997 and (c) in 1992. [38268]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 28 February 2002 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for the percentage of the unemployed in St. Helens South who have been unemployed for a year or more (a) this year, (b) in 1997 and (c) in 1992. [38268]
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the international standard International Labour Organisation definition. However, for the St. Helens South parliamentary constituency the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates.

  ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  The table below shows numbers of claimants with duration over one year or more calculated as a percentage of the total number of claimants in the St. Helens South parliamentary constituency for each January 1992, 1997 and 2002.

  St. Helens South parliamentary constituency: Claimants for over one year (computerised claims only*)

  Level

  Per cent.

  January 1992

  1,704

  34.5

  January 1997

  1,300

  37.9

  January 2002

  454

  20.2

  * Computerised claims include around 99 per cent. of all claims.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Rail Infrastructure Company
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the involvement her Department has had in the proposed structure of the successor company to Railtrack. [35302]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has had no involvement in this issue.

  Energy (Environmental Guidelines)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department intends to issue the statutory social and environmental guidelines to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. [35384]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to answer given on 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 1127w.
  1476W

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if funds will be made available to self-employed sub-postmasters and mistresses to cover the costs of training staff in the use of the Universal Bank. [36116]

  Mr. Alexander
  The training of self-employed sub-postmasters in the use and delivery of Universal Banking Services is a commercial and operational matter for Post Office Limited.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of sub-post offices in which the Universal Bank will operate. [36050]

  Mr. Alexander
  The delivery of Universal Banking services is a commercial and operational matter for Post Office Limited. My understanding is that Universal Banking Services will be available at all post offices.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the sums allocated by each of the major clearing banks for investment in the Universal Bank. [36053]

  Mr. Alexander
  The major high street banks and the Nationwide Building Society have agreed to contribute £180 million to the costs of the Post Office Card Account. They have also agreed that they will make their own basic bank accounts accessible through post offices. How much each institution is allocating to the latter is a commercial matter for each organisation.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what charges will be operated by the Universal Bank for accounts that go into overdraft. [36119]

  Mr. Alexander
  Universal Banking Services have two elements. Under the first element the banks will make their basic bank accounts accessible at post offices. Implementation of that agreement is now a commercial matter between Post Office Limited and the banks. The detailed features of these accounts are not part of the agreement on Universal Banking Services. However, the Government have announced their intention to establish a benchmark CAT standard—covering charges, access and terms—for a basic bank account, and are still in discussion with the banks about these. The second element of Universal Banking Services is the Post Office Card Account. This account will allow benefits claimants to access their benefits in cash at post offices using a Post Office based card instead of an order book or giro. It will not be possible for the account to be overdrawn.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the costs of training staff in sub-post offices in the use of the Universal Bank, and what sums are allocated in her Department's budget for training sub-post office staff in the use of the Universal Bank. [36054]

  Mr. Alexander
  The staff training involved in the delivery of Universal Banking Services through post offices is a commercial matter for the Post Office Limited.
  1477W

  Postal Services (Blind People)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will ensure that postal service for the registered blind will remain free of charge; and if she will make a statement. [36111]

  Mr. Alexander
  Consignia plc currently provides certain postal services free to blind and partially sighted people under the Articles for the Blind service. This service permits blind and partially sighted people to send a letter or parcel of any weight up to 7 kilograms free of charge to any place in the world within the terms and conditions of the service.

  In order to ensure that this service is not eroded at any time in the future, on 14 March 2001, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, issued to the postal regulator the Postal Services Commission (Postcomm) a Directive under Section 41 of the Postal Services Act 2000 under which Postcomm was instructed to include in the licence of all universal postal service providers a condition requiring them to provide certain services free of charge to the blind and partially sighted. In accordance with section 41 (2) of the Act, the requirement would not come into force before a further direction was made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. To date this Department has not needed to issue such a further direction.

  In addition, Postcomm requires Consignia plc, in the licence, to publish and submit a statement of the arrangements it has established or intends to establish to ensure that users of postal services who have significant difficulty in reaching the post office letter boxes and access points provided because they are, amongst other things, blind or partially sighted are able to post letters and postal packets regularly and as far as possible without significant cost to those users attributable to their difficulties. Such a statement was submitted to Postcomm and Postwatch on 3 August 2001 and is available on the Royal Mail's website.

  Copies of the Direction, the Consignia licence and Consignia's statement on Access and Social Obligations have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require(a) Consignia and (b) other future postal operators to provide a free mail service for the blind. [36376]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given above to PQ No. 36111.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there were in(a) the constituency of the Ribble Valley and Fulwood, (b) Lancashire, (c) the North West of England, (d) Wales and (e) the United Kingdom, in each year since 1997. [36420]

  Mr. Alexander
  Post Office Limited started to analyse post offices numbers by Government Office region in England in March 2001 when total outlets in the North West numbered 1,853. I understand from Post Office Limited that data on post office network are not held on a parliamentary constituency or county basis.
  1478W
  I am informed by Post Office Limited that data by country are not available before 1998. The numbers of post offices operating in Wales in the last three financial years are as follows:

  Wales

  Number

  End March 1998

  1,513

  End March 1999

  1,501

  End March 2000

  1,470

  End March 2001

  1,402

  I am also informed by Post Office Limited that an on-going revision of data has affected individual country totals.

  In the UK, the numbers of post offices operating since 1997 are as follows:

  Number

  End March 1997

  19,251

  End March 1998

  19,008

  End March 1999

  18,775

  End March 2000

  18,393

  End March 2001

  17,846

  Postal Services Commission
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual budget was of the Postal Services Commission and its predecessor body for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; what the agreed budget is for 2001–02; and what the estimated budget is for 2002–03. [36260]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The Postal Services Commission was initially created within DTI by administrative action in January 2000 and became an independent non-Ministerial Government Department on the coming into force of the Postal Services Act on 6 November 2000.

  No specific budget was fixed for financial year 19992000 with the initial staff and administrative costs incurred from January 2000 being covered by DTI. The agreed budgets for the following years are as follows:

  2000–01: £3.701 million

  2001–02: £6.101 million

  2002–03 estimated budget: £6.001 million

  National Manufacturing Summit
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the manufacturers who attended the December National Manufacturing Summit; how many SME manufacturers were invited; and which manufacturers from the North East were invited to attend. [36783]

  Ms Hewitt
  The list of manufacturers who attended the Manufacturing Summit is as follows:

  BAE Systems

  Alstom UK

  LandRover

  Perkins Engines

  Nissan UK

  Benteler Automotive UK

  Signet Group plc

  1479W
  A number of manufacturers were invited with the help of the Government Offices and the devolved Administrations with the intention of achieving a good spread of manufacturing interests. Nissan UK attended from the North East region.

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 60W, if she will list (a) those attending and (b) the subjects discussed at the business dinner with Arthur Andersen on 22 January. [37576]

  Mr. Hewitt
  The dinner was attended by a number of senior business people and representatives from Arthur Anderson. A wide range of issues were discussed. It is not normal practice to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts Arthur Andersen received from HM Government in each year since 1987; and what the aggregate value of those contracts was(a) before and (b) since 1997. [38388]

  Ms Hewitt: This information is not held centrally.

  For my own Department, since May 1997 seven contracts with an aggregate value of £4.9 million have been awarded. Information for the period 1987–97 cannot be accessed except at disproportionate cost.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2002, to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson),Official Report, column 60W, on Arthur Andersen, if she will place interim reports from the contracts in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [37687]

  Ms Hewitt
  The position on publication of reports on the ongoing contracts with Arthur Andersen referred to in my answer of 11 February is as follows:

  Framework arrangement for the Work-life Balance Challenge Fund projects: as the projects involve information provided on a confidential basis by companies there will be no published report.

  Study of UK competitive position: the project involves researching and updating manuals for investment officers in the UK and abroad and regional partners. As these documents are for internal training use only there will be no published report.

  Research and updating of information sheets: this information is available on the Invest UK website www.invest.uk.com.

  Unlicensed Radio Stations
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many prosecutions there were of unlicensed radio stations in each of the last available five years; [37250]
  1480W
  (2) how many prosecutions of unlicensed radio stations in the Greater London area there were in each of the last available five years;. [37252]

  (3) how many complaints the relevant department received in each of the last five years about the broadcast of unlicensed radio stations; [37251]

  (4) if she will list the average fine imposed on unlicensed radio stations for unauthorised broadcasting in each of the last five years. [37249]

  Mr. Alexander
  The number of convictions secured by the Radiocommunications Agency against pesons for unlicensed broadcasting in the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  41

  1998

  53

  1999

  47

  2000

  41

  2001

  20

  Unlicensed radio stations go to great lengths to avoid detection of studio sites but the Agency also puts consideration effort into the removal of transmitters (1,438 raids in 2001).

  Postal Services
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 968W, on Consignia, what proportion of the £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas has been spent to date; of that sum, what proportion has been spent in Scotland; and what proportion of the £480 million invested by the UK Government in the Horizon programme to automate the post office network has been spent in Scotland. [37091]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer to the reply to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 67W. Six applications for support under the £2 million rural fund have been received from initiatives in Scotland; Post Office Limited are currently evaluating them.

  To date POL have despatched 139 application forms of which 29 have been completed and returned. Of those 29, seven applications have been agreed and three have not met the criteria for the scheme, the remainder are at various states of examination.

  The Horizon programme was a national project and information is available only on the UK wide basis.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the latest posting time was to achieve next-day delivery of post to the Isle of Wight from(a) Belfast, (b) Cardiff, (c) Edinburgh, (d) Liverpool, (e) Manchester, (f) Newcastle, (g) Leeds, (h) London South-Western District and (i) Birmingham in (i) 2001, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1981. [37602]
  1481
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I understand from Consignia that to achieve next day delivery from major city centre boxes across the UK to the Isle of Wight, the last posting times were generally as follows:

  1981: 17.30

  1991: 17.30

  2001: 19.30

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the latest posting time was to achieve next-day delivery of post from the Isle of Wight to(a) Belfast, (b) Cardiff, (c) Edinburgh, (d) Liverpool, (e) Manchester, (f) Newcastle, (g) Leeds, (h) London South-Western District and (i) Birmingham in (i) 2001, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1981. [37603]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I understand from Consignia that the latest posting times to achieve next day delivery from the Isle of Wight to major city centres across the UK were as follows:

  Newport 18.45 at box in Newport town

  Ryde 18.30 at box in Union Street

  Sandown 18.00 at box outside Sorting Office

  Freshwater 17.30 at box outside office

  Ventnor 17.30 at box outside office

  The latest posting times from other boxes vary according to location. In 1981 and 1991, the last collection from the Isle of Wight was 17.30.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of addresses in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom receive a second daily delivery of mail. [38041]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: I understand from Consignia that it currently categorises delivery points as either "Town" which receive a second delivery where mail is available or "Rural" which receive a single delivery.

  The proportion of addresses covered by a second daily delivery of mail is as follows:

  Per cent

  England

  88.9

  Scotland

  85.2

  Wales

  81.9

  Northern Ireland

  72.2

  United Kingdom

  87.7

  On a UK wide basis, on average 95 per cent. of mail by volume is delivered on first delivery.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the population of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom live more than (i) one mile, (ii) two miles and (iii) five miles from a postbox. [38038]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Consignia that of the 27 million UK delivery addresses, 0.9 per cent. are more than one mile from a post box and 0.001 per cent. are more than five miles from a post box or posting facility.
  1482W
  Information is availably only on a UK basis at distances of one and five miles.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the annual revenues that would be generated if the Export Credits Guarantee Department were required to generate a return to the Government on capital of six per cent. in real terms; and if she will make a statement. [38262]

  Ms Hewitt
  I announced to the House on 7th February 2002 that the original target date for the establishment of an ECGD Trading Fund was no longer appropriate. Pending the further announcement which I have undertaken to make in due course it would not be appropriate for me to provide such an estimate.

  LNM Holdings
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings have taken place since 1997 between ministers and officials of her Department and Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and executives of the LNM Group; on what dates the meetings occurred; and who attended from her Department. [37929]

  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 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.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department was informed of the attempt by the LNM Group to acquire Sidex. [37932]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with previous Administration 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.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions on which meetings have taken place between ministers or officials and representatives of LNM Holdings in the last five years. [38853]

  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 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.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations were made by her Department to the European Commission regarding the takeover of Irish Steel by LNM Holdings. [38852]
  1483W
  Ms Hewitt
  The takeover of Irish Steel by LNM Holdings was dealt with under a previous administration.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department was informed of the support given by LNM Holdings for the imposition of US tariffs against overseas steel imports. [38843]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department was not directly informed, but became aware through the media, of this support.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received against the takeover of Sidex Steel by LNM Holdings. [38848]

  Ms Hewitt
  I receive representations from many groups eager to press their case.

  London Congestion Charge
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact the proposed London congestion charge will have on Consignia's operations in the charging zone. [37817]

  Mr. Alexander
  The proposed central London congestion charging scheme is a matter for the Mayor of London. This Department has not made an assessment of the impact the proposed charge would have on Consignia plc.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will increase the number of places for business people on RDA boards. [38479]

  Alan Johnson
  The RDAs are business-led organisations and all the RDA Chairs have strong business backgrounds. I announced the new appointments to the Regional Development Agency boards on 7 December 2001. Board members with current business experience now make up 50 per cent. of boards overall. This is a ten per cent. increase from the last round of appointments. Some RDA boards have even higher percentages of current business representation, including the East of England Development Agency and the South West Regional Development Agency with 57 per cent.

  Trade unions, local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies will also continue to be represented on RDA boards, with the majority of boards now at their statutory maximum of 15 members.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will increase regional development agency support for national parks. [38478]
  1484W
  Alan Johnson
  From 1 April, funding for Regional Development Agencies will be through new single programme budget arrangements. RDAs will be able to decide on their priorities for spending according to their regional economic strategies. Funding for RDAs will increase significantly in 2002–03 over 2001–02, from £1.2 billion to £1.5 billion, but it is for individual RDA to decide on the basis of their dialogue with local stakeholders how these resources should be used.

  Business Contacts
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to foreign Governments on behalf of individual companies since 7 June 2001; and which they were. [37966]

  Ms Hewitt
  I regularly make representations to foreign Governments on behalf of British business when it is in the UK's interest to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his answer on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 611W, Ministers in successive Governments have worked for British interest abroad and as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I regard this as an important part of my job.

  Government Chemist
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has received the 2001 Review of the Government Chemist. [40168]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have just received the fifth Annual Review of the Government Chemist and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  External Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years. [38718]

  Ms Hewitt
  On the basis that every purchase order constitutes a contract, Companies House is unable to respond with the requested information on the grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to change the departmental expenditure limit and administration cost limits for her Department and the Office of Fair Trading. [40167]

  Ms Hewitt
  A technical revision has been made to the Department of Trade and Industry DEL, which has no impact on either the total DEL or the Administration Costs limit.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table.
  1485W

  Resources (£000)

  Capital (£000)

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  7,043

  4,029,188

  895,145

  3,134,043

  -7,043

  806,285

  -148,330

  954,615

  The change in the resource and capital DEL arises from a revision of the classification as between resource and capital of an agreed increase in DEL for the Science research councils of £43,270,000 which was included in the Winter Supplementary.

  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Office of Fair Trading DEL will be increased by £3,000,000 from £40,536,000 to £43,536,000 and the Administration Costs limit will be increased by £3,000,000 from £40,536,000 to £43,536,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  Resources (£000)

  Capital (£000)

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  3,000

  41,308

  39,008

  2,300

  0

  2,228

  2,228

  0

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

  (i) to provide additional resources of £700,000 in Administration to enable the Office of Fair Trading to meet the costs of all liability to third parties for litigation and redress;

  (ii) to provide additional resources of £1,112,000 in Administration in relation to the recharge of rental income for the Office of Fair Trading Minor Occupiers. This is offset by a corresponding increase in Appropriations in Aid;

  (iii) utilise the provision of £2,300,000 in meeting the costs of liability to third parties for litigation and redress.

  The increase will be charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Shipbuilders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has for the future of British Shipbuilders. [40166]

  Brian Wilson
  British Shipbuilders still exists, under Statute, as a Nationalised Industry, although it is some years since it built ships or manufactured equipment. The only significant remaining liability of the Corporation is Employer Liability. It is intended that an official of the Department of Trade and Industry will be appointed Chairman as from 4 March, following expiry of the tenure of the current Chairman on 3 March.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the regional assistance grants to industry expressed(a) as a percentage and (b) in cash terms was given to the parliamentary constituency

  Offers of Regional Selective Assistance Grant in South East Cornwall parliamentary constituency

  Year

  Number of offers in South East. Cornwall parliamentary constituency

  Number of offers in South East Cornwall parliamentary constituency as per cent of total offers in England (per cent rounded to 1 decimal place)

  Total value of offers in South East Cornwall parliamentary constituency in cash (£ millions)

  2001

  1

  0.5

  0.160

  2000

  1

  0.5

  0.165

  1999

  2

  0.2

  0.185

  1998

  3

  0.3

  1.125

  1997

  2

  0.2

  0.116

  1996

  3

  0.2

  0.175

  1995

  6

  0.4

  0.465

  1994

  5

  0.4

  0.929

  1993

  10

  1.0

  0.271

  1992

  4

  0.5

  0.056

  1486W
  of South East Cornwall in each year since 1992; what the most recent available 12 month figures are; and if she will make a statement. [38339]

  Alan Johnson
  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) is a demand-led capital investment grant linked to the creation or safeguarding of jobs in designated areas of need (the Assisted Areas). The number of RSA grant offers this Department made to companies in the South East Cornwall parliamentary constituency(a) as a percentage of the total number of offers made in England and (b) in cash terms for each of the years from 1992 to 2001, is set out in the table.

  Since 1 January 2000, the RSA scheme has been restricted to projects involving capital investment of £500,000 or more. In April 2000 this Department introduced a new, simplified scheme, the Enterprise Grants Scheme (EGS), to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects below the £500,000 threshold for RSA. One EGS offer of £75,000 was made, in the year 2001, to a company in South East Cornwall parliamentary constituency. A total of 666 EGS offers were made in England in the year 2001 and 479 offers were made in the year 2000.

  Management Board
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will list the names and present occupations of the non-executive members of her Department's Management Board. [32835]

  Patricia Hewitt
  There is one independent member on the Department Board. Her name if Mair Barnes and she is a non-executive director on a number of boards.

SCOTLAND

  Disease Control
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations she has made to the Department of Health in respect of the paper, Getting Ahead of the Curve-A Strategy for Combating Infectious Diseases; [30694]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Department of Health on the impact on Scotland of its proposals to disband the National Radiological Protection Board. [30693]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Discussions are taking place between the Department of Health and the Scottish Executive about how the proposals will affect Scotland. These discussions include consideration of how the arrangements for the functions currently exercised in Scotland by the National Radiological Protection Board might be affected by the proposed creation of the National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish areas will benefit from the Fair Share National Lottery Initiative. [40171]

  Mr. Foulkes
  This initiative is designed to ensure that disadvantaged areas which have received lower levels up until now of lottery funding will receive a fair share of future funding. Under the initiative, two of the National Lottery distributing bodies, the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund, will target £169 million of resources. Sixty-two disadvantaged areas across Great Britain will benefit. In Scotland, six Scottish local authority areas will be targeted, making available a total of £14.95 million over the next three years.

  The Scottish local authority areas included in Fair Share are: City of Glasgow, City of Dundee, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and South Ayrshire. The six areas were selected by the lottery distributors on the basis of disadvantage combined with low levels of lottery funding. The distributors referred to the Scottish Area Deprivation Index and recent analysis for the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund initiative.

  In considering lottery awards in the Fair Share areas, NOF and the Community Fund will work with a range of partners engaged in community regeneration and development, including Social Inclusion Partnerships, local authorities and Councils for Voluntary Service.
  1488W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is making an announcement today about the areas in England that will benefit from Fair Share. The areas in Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced in due course.

  Rail Access (Airports)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she expects to publish the joint study with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Scottish Executive into the potential improvements in rail access to Scottish airports. [38868]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Executive, in association with other parties, have commissioned consultants to undertake a detailed economic and engineering study of rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports. I understand that the study is expected to be concluded by the Autumn. Publication of the report will be a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Nuclear Energy
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibility she has for the development of nuclear energy policy in Scotland. [39329]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am responsible for ensuring that the Scottish interest in reserved matters, including those relating to energy policy, receives proper consideration.

  Tourism
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of(a) the British Tourist Board and (b) VisitScotland. [39331]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular contact with the British Tourist Authority and with VisitScotland to ensure that Scotland is promoted as a world class tourist destination.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibilities she has for the promotion of Scottish tourism by(a) Scottish and (b) United Kingdom-wide Government bodies. [39332]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As Secretary of State for Scotland I continue to promote Scottish interests in the UK and overseas. In implementing my Friends of Scotland initiative, my Department works in consultation with VisitScotland and the British Tourist Authority.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Ministerial Functions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General which provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 she has relied upon with respect to the development of the role of Advocate-General that she has embarked upon. [37516]

  The Advocate-General
  The Scotland Act deals only with my statutory functions but the provisions which to date have been most relevant are(a) section 33, which enables The Advocate-General, Lord Advocate or Attorney-General to refer the question of whether a Bill or any provision of a Bill would be within the legislative

  1489W
  competence of the Scottish Parliament to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for decision. In my answer of 25 January 2002, Official Report, column 1127W on legislation I explained my approach to Scottish Parliament Bills under section 33 and (b) paragraph 6 of Schedule 6, which provides that where intimation of a devolution issue is given to The Advocate-General or Lord Advocate under paragraph 5 The Advocate-General or Lord Advocate may take part as a party to the proceedings, so far as they relate to a devolution issue. In my answer of 25 January, I explained my approach to intervention in devolution issue cases.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will decide whether to reappoint Christine Bell to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [39861]

  Mr. Browne
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has this week signed the warrant to reappoint Professor Bell for a further two years as a member of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The reappointment is effective from 1 March 2002.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's involvement has been regarding the arrest in Pakistan of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh; and if he will make a statement. [38992]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office had no involvement in the arrest of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. However, we are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Sudan
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the prospects for peace in Sudan. [38647]

  Mr. MacShane
  We believe that 2002 offers a real window of opportunity for peace in Sudan and that the UK has a major role to play in ensuring that this opportunity is seized. On 12 February the Foreign Secretary announced the appointment of Alan Goulty as the new UK Special Representative for Sudan. Mr. Goulty will be supported by a dedicated Sudan Unit, which will be staffed by officers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. In co-ordination with partners interested in bringing peace to Sudan, Mr. Goulty will be engaging with all parties to the conflict in an effort to promote the case for peace.
  1490W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding their decision to suspend peace negotiations with the Government of Sudan. [38696]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are working closely with the US Administration over Sudan, and have encouraged them to continue to engage with the Sudanese Government. What matters most is an end to suffering caused by the civil war. The only way to achieve this is through strong pressure from the international community on all parties to the conflict.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan regarding attacks on a food aid distribution site in the Western Upper Nile region of Southern Sudan. [38697]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have expressed concern at a high level of the Sudanese Government, both in Khartoum and London, about reports that a Sudanese Government helicopter gunship fired on civilians. We condemn all such attacks.

  This attack is particularly distressing at a time when hopes for peace in Sudan have been growing. We shall intensify our efforts to press all parties to the conflict on the need for swift negotiated settlement in order to end the suffering caused by so many years of civil war.

  Arab Summit (Lebanon)
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government to allow Yasser Arafat to leave Ramallah to attend the Arab summit in Lebanon between 25 and 26 March. [38506]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I expressed my serious concern about President Arafat's continued detention in Ramallah to Israeli leaders during my visit to Israel between 14 and 17 January. We have repeatedly called on the Israeli Government to end its policy of restricting Palestinians' freedom of movement. The closures contribute to a feeling of hopelessness among Palestinians, and make a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve.

  In this context, we hope that there can be early progress so that efforts to achieve a positive outcome from the Arab League Summit in Beirut on 27 March are not distracted by doubt over President Arafat's attendance. Restoration of a positive momentum to the peace process is in the interests of both parties.

  NRZ Pensions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to meet the assurances given by the British Government at the Lancaster House agreement in 1979 to NRZ employees to safeguard their pensions; and if he will compensate the NRZ employees for the failure of the Zimbabwe Government to fulfil promises made in the Lancaster House agreement. [39257]

  Mr. MacShane
  The 1979 Lancaster House Agreement stipulated that the Zimbabwe Constitution should contain provisions entitling public servants to
  1491W
  state pensions, and that pension benefits should continue to be paid to former public employees no longer resident in Zimbabwe. The Agreement contained no such guarantee for employees of parastatal organisations, such as the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ). Nor did the Agreement contain any undertaking by the British Government to assume responsibility for the payment of pensions to those eligible, should the Zimbabwean authorities fail to maintain payments. Despite this, the British High Commission in Harare regularly reminds the Zimbabwean authorities of their obligations to pensioners under the terms of the Lancaster House Agreement.

  Middle East
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Chairman Arafat to encourage a halt in violence by the Fatah faction and Hezbollah. [37456]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to urge President Arafat to exert every effort to constrain the violence and bring those responsible for violent acts to justice. The Foreign Secretary most recently raised this with President Arafat when he called on him on 13 February.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37815]

  Mr. MacShane
  It is not possible to answer this question without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 415W, what the cost of refurbishing each Ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37889]

  Mr. MacShane
  The total cost of refurbishment works carried out to Ministerial offices within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is £47,795.32 since May 1997.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Funding
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the funding available per 1,000 population for each police authority area in order of spending. [28668]

  Mr. Denham
  The amount of grant funding available per 1,000 of population for each police authority area in 2001/02 and provisional grant funding for 2002/03 are given in the table in order of spending. Grant allocation includes Home Office police grant, revenue support grant (from the Department for Transport, Local 1492W
  Government and the Regions (DTLR)), national non-domestic rates, Crime Fighting Fund allocations and, where applicable, rural policing fund grants.

  Resident population is one of a number of indicators used in the calculation of the police funding formula. Details of the indicators and their relative value in determining the allocation for individual forces are set out in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001/02 and the provisional Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002/03, a copy of each has been placed in the Library.

  Police Authority

  Funding per 1,000 population 2001–02 (£k)

  Merseyside

  162.9

  Northumbria

  143.1

  Cleveland

  141.3

  West Midlands

  139.6

  Greater Manchester

  139.4

  West Yorkshire

  128.8

  Durham

  127.1

  South Yorkshire

  125.1

  South Wales

  122.5

  Humberside

  120.7

  Lancashire

  117.0

  Gwent

  116.7

  Cumbria

  115.0

  Nottinghamshire

  114.2

  Kent

  107.9

  North Wales

  106.9

  Dyfed-Powys

  102.5

  Bedfordshire

  101.3

  Avon and Somerset

  100.6

  Leicestershire

  100.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  100.2

  Cheshire

  99.7

  Gloucestershire

  98.9

  Hampshire

  98.5

  Norfolk

  97.0

  Sussex

  96.9

  Staffordshire

  96.6

  Derbyshire

  96.3

  Northamptonshire

  96.0

  Thames Valley

  93.9

  Wiltshire

  93.8

  Cambridgeshire

  93.8

  Suffolk

  92.7

  Lincolnshire

  92.5

  Hertfordshire

  92.3

  Warwickshire

  92.2

  Essex

  92.1

  North Yorkshire

  91.8

  West Mercia

  90.1

  Dorset

  85.8

  Surrey

  77.0

  Police Authority

  Funding per 1,000 population 2002–03 (£k)

  Merseyside

  168.3

  Northumbria

  147.7

  Cleveland

  147.0

  Greater Manchester

  145.8

  West Midlands

  144.6

  West Yorkshire

  133.4

  Durham

  132.0

  South Yorkshire

  129.2

  South Wales

  128.6

  Humberside

  124.3

  Lancashire

  121.9

  Gwent

  121.9

  1493W

  Police Authority

  Funding per 1,000 population 2002–03 (£k)

  Cumbria

  119.2

  Nottinghamshire

  117.9

  Kent

  112.1

  North Wales

  111.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  107.2

  Bedfordshire

  106.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  105.3

  Leicestershire

  105.0

  Cheshire

  104.2

  Hampshire

  103.8

  Gloucestershire

  103.3

  Norfolk

  102.3

  Derbyshire

  101.6

  Sussex

  101.4

  Staffordshire

  100.1

  Northamptonshire

  99.7

  Thames Valley

  98.5

  Wiltshire

  97.4

  Cambridgeshire

  97.3

  Hertfordshire

  97.0

  Suffolk

  96.5

  Essex

  96.5

  Lincolnshire

  96.2

  North Yorkshire

  95.9

  Warwickshire

  95.4

  West Mercia

  93.7

  Dorset

  89.5

  Surrey

  79.6

  Funding for the Metropolitan and City police is included in provision for the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Corporation of the City of London respectively; both of which include funding for functions other than police. The principal police grant is given in the Provisional Police Grant Report.

  The population data are the resident population figures used in the police funding settlement for each year.

  Human Rights Legislation
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring has been done to ascertain the effect of human rights legislation on the efficiency of police investigations into criminal activity; and if he will make a statement. [29747]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office has neither commissioned nor undertaken any such monitoring.

  Crime Detection
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the detection rate was for crimes in each police force in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [30169]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information on detection rates for total crime in police force areas, for the year ended March 2001, has been published in table 2.10 of The Stationery Office publication "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000", and is given below.
  1494W

  Overall detection rate for recorded crime by police force area England and Wales 2000–01

  Police force area

  Overall Detection Rate

  Avon and Somerset

  22

  Bedfordshire

  27

  Cambridgeshire

  24

  Cheshire

  30

  Cleveland

  21

  Cumbria

  34

  Derbyshire

  26

  Devon and Cornwall

  34

  Dorset

  25

  Durham

  34

  Essex

  26

  Gloucestershire

  31

  Greater Manchester

  22

  Hampshire

  29

  Hertfordshire

  24

  Humberside

  21

  Kent

  28

  Lancashire

  27

  Leicestershire

  28

  Lincolnshire

  25

  London, City of

  27

  Merseyside

  28

  Metropolitan Police

  15

  Norfolk

  26

  Northamptonshire

  33

  Northumbria

  31

  North Yorkshire

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  South Yorkshire

  25

  Staffordshire

  23

  Suffolk

  35

  Surrey

  28

  Sussex

  23

  Thames Valley

  22

  Warwickshire

  22

  West Mercia

  27

  West Midlands

  28

  West Yorkshire

  23

  Wiltshire

  30

  Dyfed-Powys

  63

  Gwent

  57

  North Wales

  31

  South Wales

  32

  England and Wales

  24

  Immigration Service Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Immigration Service personnel have been disciplined over their treatment of visa applicants since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [31226]

  Angela Eagle
  Accurate centralised records of disciplinary action taken against members of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been held only since 1998. From that date, a total of 77 members of staff working within the United Kingdom Immigration Service have had disciplinary action taken against them, for various types of misconduct. One Immigration officer has been issued with a formal written reprimand after the inappropriate treatment of a visa applicant and inappropriate behaviour towards others.

  Police Authorities (Efficiency Savings)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and which police authorities have met the Government target of 2 per cent. efficiency savings each year in the last three financial years. [32542]

  Mr. Denham
  According to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), all 43 police forces in England and Wales achieved at least 2 per cent. efficiency savings in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Under the public service agreement, forces are required to use efficiency gains for the benefit of front line policing.

  Copies of the relevant HMIC reports are in the Library.

  Raves
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the discussions between his Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding the issue of illegal rave gatherings on private property. [33186]

  Mr. Denham
  As a result of recent and justified public concerns about this problem, we are discussing the issue of illegal raves with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to determine how existing legislation can be used more effectively and whether any legislative changes are required.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers. [29786]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last met Sir David Phillips, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), on 12 February 2002. This was the latest in an ongoing programme of monthly bi-lateral meetings between the Home Secretary and the ACPO President.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost has been of the Wiltshire Constabulary investigation into allegations of past criminal activity at DSTL Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [36309]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chief Constable informs me that the cost to Wiltshire Constabulary to the end of January 2002 was £1.62 million.

  A special grant in relation to the additional policing costs of the Porton Down investigation was made by the Home Office to Wiltshire Constabulary in August 2000 for £870,000.

  Police Sick Leave
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) for the Home Department what the average number of days 1496W
  sickness absence per year was for (a) police officers and (b) support staff in the Cheshire Constabulary in each of the past five years; [36508]

  (2) what the average number of days sickness absence was in each of the past five years for police officers in (a) Cheshire and (b) other forces in the North West. [36507]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The average number of days' sickness absence per police officer is shown in the table:

  Police Force

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Cheshire

  13

  14

  13

  12

  14

  Cumbria

  9

  10

  10

  12

  13

  Greater Manchester

  15

  15

  14

  14

  15

  Lancashire

  12

  11

  12

  12

  13

  Merseyside

  19

  12

  11

  12

  13

  The average number of days' sickness absence per member of Cheshire Constabulary's support staff was:

  1996–97:

  16

  1997–98:

  16

  1998–99:

  16

  1999–2000:

  14

  2000–01:

  16

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when criminals in prison who are victims of a crime are informed of the criminal injuries compensation scheme; what the eligibility criteria are which are used by the CICS to determine if an application is acceptable; how many(a) ex-prisoners and (b) prisoners who have been victims of serious crime have received compensation from the CICS in each of the last five years; how much compensation such people have received; and what the basis was of each award. [37075]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme provides compensation to victims of violent crime. Victims of non-violent crime must look elsewhere for compensation or redress.

  Legal services officers in each prison establishment are able to provide information to prisoners about the scheme and how to apply for compensation if they have been the victim of a violent crime.

  The eligibility criteria are set out in the scheme itself, and the accompanying "Guide to Applicants" explains how applications are assessed against them. The scheme includes a provision enabling awards to be reduced or withheld on account of the applicant's record of criminal convictions.

  The scheme is administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). They have no means of determining whether an applicant is an "ex-prisoner". Their only means of identifying current prisoners is by a computer search of applicants' addresses for the words "Her Majesty's (HM) Prison", and then excluding those who are prison officers. In the last five years the following awards have been made to those so identified as prisoners.

  1497W

  1996–97: £5,000, £3,120, £3,750.

  1997–98: £1,260, £1,350*, £1,000*, £5,000.

  1998–99: 000, £500, £1,000.

  1999–2000: £3,500, £500, £5,375, £1,000, £8,700

  2000–01: £375.

  All but two of these awards (starred) were reduced awards. Thirty-seven applications remain outstanding.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether criminals in prison who are victims of crime receive the support of the witness service at the Crown Court. [37072]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Witness Service, at both the Crown Court and magistrates' courts, is provided through the organisation Victim Support, whose grant from the Home Office in 2001–02 is £25 million.

  Victim Support advise that the Witness Service does offer support to those in custody at court buildings where they are appearing as witnesses in a trial, but not if they are appearing as defendants. Those supported may fall into one of the following categories: they are serving a sentence and the alleged crime took place in prison: they are on remand; or they have been brought in on a bench warrant.

  Where witness support is to be offered, the visit must be cleared with the police and prosecuting authority. Visits can only be made in the presence of one of those authorities for legal reasons.

  Police Authority Performance Indicators
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the best value performance indicators for police authorities for 2002–03; and which indicators have been(a) deleted and (b) added since 2001–02. [36807]

  Mr. Denham
  Proposed Best Value Performance Indicators went out for consultation on 16 January 2002; the consultation document set out changes to the previous suite of Performance Indicators. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects shortly to be in a position to make his decision in the light of comments received and to make an Order under Section 4(1) of the Local Government Act 1999. The results will be published.

  Police Secondments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are seconded from police authorities to(a) the National Criminal Intelligence Service, (b) the Police Staff College, (c) police training centres, (d) the International Police Task Force in Bosnia and (e) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. [36806]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The information is set out in the table:

  Organisation

  Number of Police Officers1

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  271

  National Police Training—Bramshill

  101

  Police Training Centres

  447

  1498W

  Organisation

  Number of Police Officers1

  International Task Force in Bosnia

  66

  Her Majesty's (HM) Inspectorate of Constabulary

  52

  1 National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) strength as at 30 September 2001 (as per Home Office Statistical Bulletin 23/01). All other figures are as at 15 February 2002.

  Youth Offender Panels
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action has been taken to launch youth offender panels; and what further action is planned; [38328]

  (2) in which newspapers and on which radio stations membership of youth offender panels has been advertised. [38327]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Youth offending teams (Yots) throughout England and Wales are currently recruiting members of their local community to sit on youth offender panels. As this is a locally based initiative, action has been taken mainly on a local and regional basis. This has been boosted by national advertising targeted at specific groups who were under-represented in the pilot areas.

  The campaign has been supported by the Youth Justice Board which has provided Yots with press releases, posters, leaflets and a standard advertisement for use in local media. The Board has also set up a dedicated website and issued a promotional video.

  Some Yots have been very proactive launching their own radio advertising. Examples include radio stations in Berkshire, Bristol, Merseyside, Sheffield and Anglia TV.

  A press release was issued to the national media, which was reported in The Independent newspaper. National advertising has concentrated on the ethnic press, student magazines and The Big Issue.

  There will be further action in the run up to referral orders/youth offender panels going live on 1 April 2002 with a feature being offered to national magazines, trade journals, newspapers and broadcasters and the Youth Justice Board will again be asking Yots to promote panels to their local press.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether sex offenders whose offences are deemed spent after the completion of youth offender panel orders must remain on the Sex Offenders' Register. [38330]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The Sex Offenders Act 1997 imposes requirements on offenders cautioned, convicted, or found not guilty by reason of insanity in respect of an offence specified in Schedule 1 to the Act for a specified period. The minimum duration specified is five years. However, the Act also provides that determinate periods will be halved when the offender in question is under the age of

  1499W
  18. Whether a conviction is spent, in the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, has no impact on the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act.

  The review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, which we published in July last year, contains a chapter on its application to children and young people who sexually abuse. The consultation period on the review ended on 19 October 2001 and we are currently considering responses to consultation.

  Female Convictions
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of women under sentence in prisons in England and Wales have been convicted of(a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery and (d) other offences. [37788]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Provisional data show that around 15 per cent. of all sentenced female prisoners in prisons in England and Wales on 31 January 2002 were convicted of violence against the person. Approximately 9 per cent. were convicted of robbery, and around 1 per cent. of sexual offences. The remaining 75 per cent. were convicted of other criminal offences.

  Police Authority Priorities
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the reasons underlying the changes in ministerial priorities for police authorities for 2002–03 since 2001–02. [36808]

  Mr. Denham
  Proposed changes to ministerial priorities went out for consultation on 16 January 2002. The consultation period is now over and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects shortly to be in a position to make his decision in the light of comments received, and to make an Order under Section 37(1) of the Police Act 1996.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 Special Advisers in his Department have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if he will give the total cost, including(a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) subsistence allowance for each occasion. [37972]

  Mr. Leslie
  Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, Special Advisers in the Cabinet Office travelled abroad on eight occasions, at an average cost of £1,706.46 per trip. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain. All travel by Special Advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.
  1500W

  Civil Defence Grant
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which minister is responsible for making civil defence grants under the Civil Defence Act 1948 as amended by the Civil Defence (Grants) Act 2002. [40019]

  Mr. Leslie
  The power to make civil defence grants rests in law with the Secretary of State and responsibility has been allocated to the First Secretary of State. An announcement will be made shortly on the formula to be used to determine the grant for eligible local authorities for the next financial year.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37821]

  Mr. Leslie
  All works carried out during the period covered by the Question were undertaken as part of a 5 year rolling programme of maintenance and repair work necessary in order to maintain the fabric and content of the buildings to an acceptable level. Within such costs, to try to separately identify work undertaken on Ministerial Private Offices would incur disproportionate costs.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Divisions
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the President of the Council how many divisions in the House of Commons this session have been on legislation for(a) the UK, (b) Great Britain only, (c) England and Wales only, (d) England only, (e) Northern Ireland only and (f) Scotland only. [37046]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Discounting divisions on Programme Motions, the numbers are as follows:

  Total divisions on Government bills to date: 73 (leaving aside 22 on programme motions), broker down as follows.

  (a) UK legislation: 12 bills divided upon 43 divisions

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill:

  21

  Employment Bill:

  4

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill:

  6

  Export Control Bill:

  2

  Human Reproductive Cloning Bill:

  1

  NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill:

  6

  Tax Credits Bill:

  3

  (b) Legislation extending to Great Britain only: 1 bill divided upon 4 divisions

  Civil Defence (Grant) Bill:

  4

  (c) Legislation extending to England and Wales only: 5 bills divided upon 20 divisions

  Animal Health Bill:

  6

  Education Bill:

  11

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill:

  2

  Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill:

  1

  1501W
  (d) Legislation extending to England only: Nil

  (e) Legislation extending to Northern Ireland only: 3 bills divided upon 6 divisions

  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill:

  1

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill:

  1

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill:

  4

  (f) Legislation extending to Scotland only: Nil

  Parliamentary Questions
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to change the rota for oral questions. [39507]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Following my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) on Wednesday 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 311W, the slot for Church Commissioners, Public Accounts Commission and Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission will be increased by 5 minutes and questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will correspondingly be reduced. This is for a trial period and will be reviewed again in the Summer.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are to amend the Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02. [39374]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £79,129,000 from £8,534,916,000 to £8,614,357.000. The increase is a result of:

  (i) the take up of end year flexibility entitlement of £70,330,000.

  (ii) additional provision of:

  £430,000 for extended match funding for Foot and Mouth charities;

  £5,879,000 consequentials resulting from the Capital Modernisation Fund Round 3.

  (iii) net transfers from other government departments of £2,802,000.

  These transfers are as follows:

  (i) £40,000 from DEFRA to cover Pig Industry Restructuring - Outgoers Scheme.

  (ii) £57,000 to the Cabinet Office for Fast Stream Recruitment in 2001–2002.

  (iii) £200,000 from the Home Office for Crime Reduction.

  (iv) £80,000 from the Office of Government Commerce for e-procurement pilot.

  (v) £105,000 from the Home Office for Confiscated Assets Fund.

  1502W

  (vi) £250,000 from the Forestry Commission for accruals adjustments.

  (vii) £18,000 from Department of Health Northern Ireland, for Out of Area Treatments.

  (viii) £1,786,000 from Department of Health for Out of Area Treatments.

  (ix) £163,000 from Department of Health for High Security Psychiatric Services.

  (x) £11,000 from Department of Health for Dental SIFT.

  (xi) £1,723,000 from Department of Health for Cross Border Flows.

  (xii) £1,097,000 to the Department of Health for Recostings.

  (xiii) £73,000 from the Scottish Parliament for Out of Area Treatments.

  (xiv) £400,000 to DEFRA for Carbon Trust EEBP Programme.

  (xv) £93,000 to Department of Health for contributions to Royal Colleges.

  The increase in DEL will be offset by transfers from other Departments, from the Reserve or take up of end-year flexibility and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Working Conditions and Practice
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [35353]

  Mr. P Murphy
  Job sharing is only one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns that staff at the Wales Office are welcome to take up. The flexibility of the pattern is decided in consultation with appropriate Branch management to suit an individual's need and the needs of their work.

  At the present time the Wales Office does not have any job share staff, but every position that is advertised at the Wales Office is open to alternative and flexible working patterns including job share. Currently, out of the 40 staff at the Wales Office 8 enjoy alternative and flexible working patterns.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [35892]

  Mr. P Murphy
  The Wales Office has a duty to ensure the health and safety of its staff. Hence no member of staff at the Wales Office is asked to work hours in excess of the Working Time Directive (an average of 48 hours a week over a 17-week period).

  One member of staff has voluntarily opted out of this directive.
  1503W

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [34454]

  Mr. P Murphy
  This information is not available in the form requested.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Litter Offences
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) attempted and (b) successful prosecutions of those accused of litter offences, broken down by offence for London boroughs in each year since 1995. [34334]

  Mr. Meacher
  This detailed data are not held centrally. However, information that is available for England and Wales in 1999 showed that there were 501 attempted prosecutions and 390 successful prosecution in a magistrates court.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees in(a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies 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 she will make a statement. [32318]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The Department follows the guidance in paragraph 7.1.7 of the Civil Service Management Code which prohibits Departments and agencies from providing staff with private medical insurance.

  Non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are not bound by the Management Code and have provided the following benefits:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number of Employees

  275

  286

  298

  307

  Total Cost

  £147k

  £148k

  £131k

  £157k

  Ozone Depleting Substances
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the UK standards on the recovery of ozone depleting substances will be published; and if she will make a statement. [34602]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department published draft standards for the recovery of controlled ozone depleting substances from fridges and freezers in December 2001.
  1504W
  The Environment Agency are now finalising these standards and a draft of the final version will be issued this month.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to ratify the biosafety protocol. [34545]

  Margaret Beckett
  Ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety by the United Kingdom is partly dependent on legislative action at the European Community level. The European Commission is shortly due to issue proposals for such legislation. The UK will press for early progress in negotiations on these proposals, so that we may be in a position to ratify the Protocol before the end of this year.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to ratify the Kyoto protocol. [34546]

  Margaret Beckett
  For legal and presentational reasons, the UK will ratify the Kyoto protocol at the same time as the European Community and other Member States. At the European Council on 31 October 2001, the EU stressed"the Community's and its Member States' resolve to complete their ratification procedures in time for timely ratification with a view to entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by the World Summit on Sustainable Development" in 2002.

  The first step in the process is for the EC to ratify the protocol through the adoption of a Council Decision that will include further clarification on the arrangements for implementing the agreement between the EC and its Member States in 1998 on sharing out the EC's - 8 per cent target. A Council Decision dealing with these issues is currently under discussion and is expected to be adopted at the next Environment Council on 4 March 2002.

  Nitrates
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the annual cost to individual farmers of the proposed implementation of the 1991 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Directive; and what system of monitoring her Department proposes to establish for policing the use of nitrogen in nitrate vulnerable zones. [35879]

  Mr. Meacher
  The annual cost of complying with the record keeping requirements of the Nitrates Directive is estimated at an average of £200 per farm. Where farmers need to take further action to comply with the Directive, the total costs of such additional action is estimated as up to £12.5m per annum across England in total. However, these extra costs would not be meaningful expressed as an average per farmer because they will vary considerably between individual farms depending on their individual circumstances.
  1505W
  It is intended to extend the Farm Waste Grant Scheme to the new areas where farmers will be required to take action to tackle nitrate pollution. This will make financial assistance available to those farmers who face the greatest costs, for example because they need to construct new slurry storage to comply with closed periods for spreading manure on vulnerable soils. The grant rate is currently 40 per cent (the EU State Aid Rules maximum) for construction or upgrade of storage facilities up to an investment ceiling of £85,000. We are currently considering offering 50 per cent in Less Favoured Areas, as permitted by the EU State Aid Rules. From experience in current NVZs, the average cost of new slurry storage construction to comply with Action Programme measures is between £30,000 and £40,000.

  The Environment Agency will be responsible for enforcing compliance in the new areas where farmers are required to take action to reduce nitrate pollution, as well as in existing Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. The Agency propose to develop a risk based approach to enforcement, for instance by relating the frequency and nature of inspection to the risk of pollution.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the tidal surge which hit the Thames Estuary and the North Kent Coast on 29 January, with special reference to the adequacy of the flood defences along the Erith, Crayford and Dartford stretch of the river bank and the risk of the River Thames flooding in this area. [35440]

  Mr. Morley
  A tidal surge occurred on the morning tide of 29 January 2002, which was below the level where the Thames barrier is activated though some of the other estuary barriers were closed. There was no danger to life or property in this event.

  The tidal flood defences between Erith and Dartford, along the north Kent coast are inspected and maintained regularly. These defences form part of the overall flood protection system on the tidal Thames, which, with the barriers closed, are designed to provide a high standard of protection against events with a current annual probability of less then 0.1 per cent. ("1 in 1,000 year").

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason it was necessary for veterinarians to wait in excess of 24 hours before obtaining permission to slaughter animals identified as suffering from foot and mouth disease. [38210]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not the case that veterinarians had to wait more than 24 hours for permission to slaughter animals infected with foot and mouth disease. The 1506W
  National Disease Control Centre (NDCC) was responsible for the confirmation of disease based on telephone reports from field staff. On 21 March, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed that field staff could slaughter animals that they believed were infected with foot and mouth disease, without authority, if they were unable to contact the NDCC within two hours.

  In a survey of Temporary Veterinary Inspectors, the British Veterinary Association found that it took TVI's on average, 14.5 minutes to get through to the NDCC and that the longest wait was 2 hours. The average response time by the NDCC was 10 minutes and the longest wait for a response was 4 hours.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the incubation period for the foot and mouth disease is in(a) cattle and (b) sheep. [38523]

  Mr. Morley
  The incubation period for foot and mouth varies according to the infecting dose, the strain of the virus and the susceptibility of the infected animal. The most likely incubation period for all species is 5 days. The common range of incubation is accepted at between 3 to 8 days, although the maximum range is between 2 and 14 days.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the foot and mouth compensation payments were made by the(a) UK and (b) EU; and if she will make a statement. [39258]

  Mr. Morley
  All compensation payments related to foot and mouth disease have been made by the UK Government. EU Member States may claim up to 60 per cent of eligible costs incurred during the control of foot and mouth disease from the European Commission. In June 2001, my Department submitted a claim to the Commission based on estimated costs of £1,153 million. An updated claim based on costs of £1,663 million was submitted in October.

  In accordance with Commission Decision 2001/654/ EC of 16 August 2001, detailed initial information has been submitted to the Commission in support of the UK's claim and we are in regular contact with Commission officials in furtherance of the claim.

  Gas Emissions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total UK(a) carbon dioxide emissions and (b) other greenhouse gas emissions were; and what the percentage change was in each of the last 10 years. [37819]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table shows the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and SF6) emitted during the years 1990 to 1999. (Records for 2000 are not yet complete.) The percentage change in emissions for each year compared to the previous year, and for each year compared to 1990 is also shown for each gas.
  1507W

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  CO2(Mt)

  602.8

  606.7

  591.9

  576.3

  572.4

  563.4

  583.0

  558.0

  560.3

  547.8

  %

  0.64

  -2.43

  -2.63

  -0.68

  -1.57

  3.47

  -4.28

  0.40

  -2.22

  %(1990)

  0.64

  -1.81

  -4.39

  -5.04

  -6.54

  -3.29

  -7.43

  -7.06

  -9.13

  CH4(Mt)

  3.67

  3.62

  3.53

  3.38

  3.07

  3.05

  2.98

  2.89

  2.76

  2.63

  %

  -1.36

  -2.49

  -4.25

  -9.17

  -0.65

  -2.30

  -3.02

  -4.50

  -4.71

  %(1990)

  -1.36

  -3.81

  -7.90

  -16.35

  -16.89

  -18.80

  -21.25

  -24.80

  -28.34

  N2O(Mt)

  0.22

  0.21

  0.19

  0.18

  0.19

  0.18

  0.19

  .0.19

  0.19

  0.14

  %

  -4.55

  -9.52

  -5.26

  5.56

  -5.26

  5.56

  0.00

  0.00

  -26.32

  % (1990)

  -4.55

  -13.64

  -18.18

  -13.64

  -18.18

  -13.64

  -13.64

  -13.64

  -36.36

  HFC (kt)

  0.973

  1.025

  1.074

  1.162

  1.451

  1.956

  2.472

  3.067

  3.660

  2.749

  %

  5.34

  4.78

  8.19

  24.87

  34.80

  26.38

  24.07

  19.33

  -24.89

  %(1990)

  5.34

  10.38

  19.42

  49.13

  101.03

  154.06

  215.21

  276.16

  182.53

  PFC (kt)

  0.331

  0.259

  0.137

  0.115

  0.140

  0.157

  0.130

  0.095

  0.094

  0.098

  %

  -21.75

  - 47.10

  -16.06

  21.74

  12.14

  -17.20

  -26.92

  -1.05

  4.26

  %(1990)

  -21.75

  -58.61

  -65.26

  -57.70

  -52.57

  -60.73

  -71.30

  -71.60

  -70.39

  SF6(kt)

  0.030

  0.032

  0.035

  0.037

  0.044

  0.047

  0.053

  0.053

  0.054

  0.055

  %

  6.67

  9.38

  5.71

  18.92

  6.82

  12.77

  0.00

  1.89

  1.85

  %(1990)

  6.67

  16.67

  23.33

  46.67

  56.67

  76.67

  76.67

  80.00

  83.33

  Precautionary Principle
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy regarding the precautionary principle. [38273]

  Mr. Morley
  The precautionary principle holds that the absence of scientific proof should not delay or prevent proportionate measures to remove or reduce threats of serious harm. Where there is scientific uncertainty DEFRA will adopt a precautionary approach where it is considered appropriate. In doing this, we are mindful of the EU Council resolution on the precautionary principle and of the Government's response to the report of the BSE Inquiry.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1161W, what the cost of refurbishing each Ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37899]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF Ministers' private offices moved from Whitehall Place West to Nobel House, Smith Square, in 1997/98. The cost of the move was £38,000. In addition, alterations to prepare the accommodation for Ministers and senior officials cost £240,000 and £54,000 was spent on new furniture. The offices vacated in Whitehall Place West were subsequently occupied by MAFF officials at no additional cost.

  No further refurbishment work has been undertaken on Ministers' private offices since 1997–98.

  Fisheries (Prosecutions)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many successful prosecutions were brought against fishing vessels during the last five years for(a) catching of undersized fish, (b) landing of undersized fish, (c) using illegal nets and trawls, (d) irregularities in log book, (e) having a catch in excess of quote and (f) other reasons. [37945]
  1508W
  Mr. Morley
  Information on the total number of successful prosecutions involving fishing vessels during the period 1997 to 2001 for the following types of offences is set out in the table below.

  Type of offence

  Number of successful prosecutions

  Retaining on board or landing undersized fish

  26

  Use/carriage of illegal nets

  44

  Logbook offences

  77

  Retaining on board or landing over quota species

  57

  Other

  110

  For the purpose of the table prosecutions involving both the owner and master have been treated as a single case. Some cases may involve more than one offence under one or more of the above headings.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on how many occasions successful prosecutions have been brought against fishing vessels in the past five years for which records are available; and how many were (a) UK-registered, British-crewed vessels, (b) UK-registered flag of convenience vessels and (c) non-UK registered vessels; [37944]

  (2) on how many occasions enforcement action has been taken against fishing vessels by her Department in the last five years for which records are available. [37987]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The number of successful prosecutions in respect of UK and non UK registered vessels by this Department during the period 1997 to 2001 were:

  239 UK registered vessels

  75 non-UK registered vessels

  The totals above include vessels which have been prosecuted on more than one occasion. Our prosecution records do not distinguish whether UK registered vessels were crewed by UK or foreign nationals.
  1509W

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what budget has been employed by her Department to manage the fisheries enforcement operation in England for each year for the past five years. [37874]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about the financial resources devoted to fisheries control and enforcement by this Department is set out in the following table:

  £million

  1996–97

  12.6

  1997–98

  12.6

  1998–99

  11.8

  1999–2000

  11.1

  2000–01

  11.8

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much of the fines paid by fishing owners and skippers following their prosecution is paid to her Department; and who else receives income from these fines; [37947]

  (2) how much her Department has recovered from fishing vessel owners and skippers following successful prosecutions for each year for the past five years for which records are available. [37946]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for collecting fines imposed following a successful prosecution rests with the Courts concerned. No fines are paid to this Department.

  IACS Payments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farmers who were under Form D restrictions qualify for IACS payments; and if she will make a statement. [39279]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not readily available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, it is likely that most of the farmers concerned would have been claimants under schemes covered by IACS.

  Badgers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers there were in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) the UK in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [39269]

  Mr. Morley
  No annual data on the number of badgers exist either at county or national level.

  Based upon two surveys the number of badgers in Great Britain is estimated to be between 300,000 and 400,000. The latest survey which was conducted in the mid-1990s revealed an increase in badger numbers of around seventy per cent compared with the first survey which was undertaken in the mid-1980s. These surveys indicated that the badger population in the south-west region as a whole increased approximately in line with the national trend.
  1510W

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking on the preliminary results of the trials being conducted on tuberculosis in cattle; and if she will make a statement. [39267]

  Mr. Morley
  On the basis of advice from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, results from the badger field trial, which is part of the Government's wide ranging strategy to tackle TB in cattle, are expected by the end of 2004. The Government liaise closely with the group and any preliminary findings that may emerge in the interim will be considered in the light of advice from the group.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent changes in the rate of tuberculosis in cattle in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) the UK. [39270]

  Mr. Morley
  TB in cattle is continuing to give considerable concern particularly in counties such as Gloucestershire which has persistently had a higher incidence of the disease than most other areas of the country. Incidence of bovine TB is increasing in England and Wales, and the Government have in place an extensive research programme "so that control strategies can be developed on the basis of sound science, and on the basis of advice from independent scientific and veterinary experts.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many herds have been tested for tuberculosis and how many were found positive in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) England in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [39266]

  Mr. Morley
  Provisional data indicate that in the 12 months to December 2001 8,211 tuberculin tests on cattle herds were undertaken in England of which 523 were in Gloucestershire. From these tests a total of 337 new confirmed bovine tuberculosis incidents were recorded for England of which 35 were in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many herds are under restriction through tuberculosis(a) in England and (b) in Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement. [39265]

  Mr. Morley
  Provisional data as at 31 January 2002 indicate that there were 767 herds under movement restrictions in England as a result of tuberculosis breakdown, of which 113 were in Gloucestershire. On the same data and on the basis of veterinary risk assessment further control measures were introduced, resulting in an additional 631 herds being placed under restriction in England of which 120 were in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigations she has made of the experience in the Republic of Ireland of tuberculosis in cattle; and if she will make a statement. [39268]
  1511W
  Mr. Morley
  In implementing its wide ranging research and control strategy the Department is advised by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. It also has a TB animal vaccine programme adviser. The group, the Vaccine Programme adviser and Departmental officials visited Ireland last autumn to investigate the work being undertaken in that country.

  Plastic Recycling
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what she estimates the cost will be of starting a scheme for plastic sheet recycling for farmers; [37988]

  (2) what the estimated weight is of unrecycled plastic in the countryside; and what its environmental impact is. [37989]

  Mr. Meacher
  An estimated 43,000 tonnes a year of non-packaging plastic waste is produced on farms. In addition, it is estimated that there is about 45,000 tonnes a year of plastic packaging waste on farms. Currently, there are only a small number of local voluntary schemes in operation to collect farm plastics for recycling.

  We are at present developing a Regulatory Impact Assessment to assess the various costs and benefits of the options for introducing a scheme to collect and recycle farm plastics. This RIA will be included in the forthcoming consultation document on the application to agricultural waste of the Waste Framework Directive.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what receipts there have been for(a) each county and (b) other waste disposal authorities of the additional moneys made available for the disposal of old refrigerators and freezers. [38865]

  Mr. Meacher
  In early December 2001, I announced a payment of £6 million to cover local authority costs from January to March 2002. This payment will be made through the Revenue Support Grant for 2002–2003 and will be distributed to waste disposal authorities according to the Standard Spending Assessment Formula. We are monitoring the impact of the Regulation to assess what further action is required.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to question 3689; and if she will make a statement. [38342]

  (2) when she will reply to question 3690; and if she will make a statement. [38344]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 88W.
  1512W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to question 3534; and if she will make a statement. [38343]

  (2) When she will reply to question 3537; and if she will make a statement. [38345]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1169-70W.

  Hunting With Dogs
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the government's policy on hunting with dogs. [40339]

  Alun Michael
  The Government intend to provide an opportunity for each House to debate a motion which will allow Members to vote for and against each of the three options which were presented to the House during the last Parliament. This will fulfil the first part of our promise by giving the House an early opportunity to express its view. We will then consider, in the light of the votes and the views expressed during the debates in both Houses, how to deliver the second part of that commitment, to"enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".
  The Government will make a statement on the way forward before Easter in response to the debate and vote in both Houses.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what proportions of slam shut carriages have been converted to the cone and cup safety mechanism; [28660]

  (2) if the removal from the rail network of those slam shut carriages not converted to the cone and cup safety mechanism will be achieved by December; [28645]

  (3) if slam shut carriages will be converted to the cone and cup safety mechanism by December 2002. [28659]

  Mr. Spellar
  This issue is dealt with by Railway Safety Regulations 1999.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 18W, on rail passengers, what is the frequency of the regular surveys and, in relation to the action plans (a) which train operating companies have been required to implement such a plan since 1995, (b) when these have taken place, (c) what these action plans have required from each train operating company, (d) what outcomes have resulted from any action plans and (e) how progress towards the action plans is

  1513W
  measured and (f) what steps he plans to take to improve the co-ordination and standard of customer satisfaction surveys and national passenger surveys. [32696]

  Mr. Spellar
  Train Operating Companies (TOCs) have a contractual commitment to carry out customer satisfaction surveys at least every six months. Following the results of the surveys a number of TOCs have been required to undertake a variety of action plans. These action plans become contractual commitments and are monitored continuously by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to ensure they are fulfilled.

  Details of improvement to services for passengers being implemented by each TOC, including those derived from surveys and action plans are listed in the regular SRA On Track publication, which also summarises National Passenger Survey results. It is the SRA's aim that all TOCs will be measured and monitored by the National Passenger Survey under the Franchise Agreement rather their own customer satisfaction surveys.

  Enron
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings(a) he and (b) his senior departmental officials have had with Enron and its subsidiaries in the last two years. [32433]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Number of Contracts

  PWC

  Ernst & Young

  Deloitte & Touche

  KPMG

  Andersen

  1997–98

  5

  1

  0

  2

  1

  1998–99

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1999–2000

  6

  1

  1

  3

  1

  2000–01

  10

  0

  3

  2

  0

  2001–02

  2

  6

  1

  3

  2

  Value of Payments Made to Contractors

  PWC £

  Ernst & Young £

  Deloitte & Touche £

  KPMG £

  Andersen £

  1997–98

  800,000.00

  65,082.10

  0

  705,111.00

  0

  1998–99

  11,572.08

  0

  0

  75,206.00

  0

  1999–2000

  1,208,054.89

  95.00

  963,395.80

  1,557,707.27

  71,351,88

  2000–01

  973,897.00

  179,638.37

  3,950,854.35

  1,695,751.26

  5,052.50

  2001–02

  9,393,379.87

  7,970,711.15

  1,646,438.61

  2,329,430.39

  325,753.40

  Note: The value of certain contracts is not divisible between years and so payments have been accorded to the first year of the contract.

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will define a special purpose vehicle in the context of the railways. [34829]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The concept of a special purpose vehicle is a separate joint venture company set up to finance and manage one or more rail infrastructure projects. Parties in the company
  1514W

  Accounting Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & 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. [33848]

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (iii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34994]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, whether through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or other procurement routes, taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer. The public sector as a whole has signed hundreds of contracts, covering the delivery of a range of services.

  Detail of contracts and payments made by my Department to the firms listed are set out in the tables. The information is based on that held in DTLR's central records and that held centrally by agencies.

  might include any combination of the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, train operators, construction and project management firms and third-party investors.

  London Underground
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which journalists, and from which publications, were invited to the briefing given on the future of the London Underground on 6 February. [35558]
  1515W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: There was no briefing given on 6 February. DTLR officials gave technical briefings on Monday 4 February and Tuesday 5 February to broadcast media and transport correspondents respectively.

  These briefings were on the technical detail of the bidding process including value for money issues and the public sector comparator. Obviously, prior to the London Transport Board meeting on Thursday 7 February, these briefings did not cover London Transport's "minded" decision on way ahead for the Tube PPP, which was not taken until that meeting.

  10-Year Plan
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1108W, refs 33767 and 33769, on the transport 10-year financial envelope, if he will set out the changes to the planned expenditure envelope which result in the overall increase and the amount of the increase attributable to each change. [35741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The latest 10-Year Plan total of £181.9 billion announced by the Secretary of State in an oral and written answer on 29 January 2002, Official Report, columns 149-152 and 175W, took account of a number of changes to the 10-Year Plan expenditure numbers. The main changes were the following:

  1. The fact that the public expenditure numbers for 2001/02 reflect actual spending between April and December 2001 (the first nine months of the Plan) and take account of the latest outturn projection for that year;

  2. reductions of £38/118/183 million for the years 2001/02 to 2003/04 as a result of internal DETR reallocations immediately following SR2000.

  3. a transfer of £2.3 billion from the 10 Year Plan Unallocated Fund to Railways;

  4. £1.5 billion of additional provision for Railways;

  5. £462 million of additional provision for Railways to cover a shortfall in Railtrack's freight income;

  6. a transfer of £77 million from London to Railways to cover he SRA's contribution to CrossRail development costs;

  7. the inclusion of £290 million of unused provision for Railways carried forward as end-year flexibility from 2000–01 to 2001–02;

  8. no changes have been made to the private investment numbers.

  The effect of these changes is summarised in the revised version of Table A3 from 'Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan' that I referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 785W, and which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Social Services Spending
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for shire counties (1) the social services SSA for child protection, divided by the number of children under the age of 18, adjusted for inflation at current values, in the years 1990–91 to 2001–02 and projected for 2002–03. [36762]

  (2) the social services divided by total population, adjusted for inflation at current values, for the years 1990–91 to 2001–02 and projected for 2002–03. [36761]

  (3) the total SSA, divided by the population financed by that county, adjusted for inflation at current values (a) of the years 1990–91 to 2001–02 and (b) projected or 2002–03. [36756]

  Dr. Whitehead
  A table has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The figures are quoted as they were announced each year. It has not been possible to construct a run of figures over the period that are adjusted for changes in function or financing arrangements. Some year on year changes shown in the table are, therefore, not on a like for like basis.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the standard spending assessments per(a) pensioner and (b) young person under the age of 18 by county council for England and Wales in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02, and projected for the financial year 2002–03, adjusted for inflation at current values. [36760]

  Dr Whitehead
  The Department does not keep data on people of pensionable age covering the entire period, nor on standard spending assessments for local authorities in Wales. A table showing, for each English county council, the total standard spending assessment per person aged 65 or over, adjusted for inflation at current values has been placed in Libraries of the House, together with a table showing the total standard spending assessment per person aged 0 to 17, adjusted for inflation at current values.

  The figures are quoted as they were announced each year. It has not been possible to construct a run of figures over the period that are adjusted for changes in function or financing arrangements. Some year on year changes shown in the table are, therefore, not on a like for like basis.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to the public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39104]

  Dr. Whitehead
  For details of the publicity and advertising campaigns run by my Department in each of the last 4 years, together with purpose, cost and how we
  1517W
  evaluate campaigns. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on 24 January 2002, Official Report, column 1037W, and to the replies by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 20 December 2000, Official Report, columns 168-69W, and to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 23 April 2001, Official Report, columns 57W-59W.

  DTLR currently employs seventeen paid publicity specialists who work on a range of public information services including advertising campaigns.

  Asset Transfers
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) research, (b) consultation and (c) discussions his Department has carried out since 1997 on the legal definition and status of asset transfers. [38976]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Assets are defined in the Accounting Standards Board's Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 5 as "rights or other access to future economic benefits controlled by an entity as a result of past transactions or events". Future economic benefits, in this context, means that the asset will contribute in some way to the provision of services or other outputs by Departments. Control, in this context, means the ability to obtain those benefits in fulfilment of aims and objectives of the entity and to restrict the access of others.

  In accounting for asset transfers we follow the guidance of HM Treasury's "Resource Accounting Manual" (TRAM) and "Government Accounting". TRAM states at paragraph 3.2.36 that "Where tangible fixed assets are transferred between Government Departments, other than in connection with either a transfer of functions from one Department to another or a merger of Departments, the transfer price should be calculated in accordance with an assessment of the fair values on an equivalent basis to that required by FRS 7 for the attribution of fair values to tangible fixed assets acquired on a business combination". Government Accounting, at paragraph 24.4.2, states that: "Transfers of assets (including assignments of leases) at less than full market value should be accounted for as gifts. The value of the gift will be the difference between the open market value and the price at which it is transferred".

  Our accounting actions are based upon the decisions and requests of the asset owners upon whom fall the legal responsibilities of asset management.

  Railway Network Grants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the network grants for railways to which his Department is contractually committed. [39163]
  1518W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The profile of network grant payments is set out in Appendix D of the Rail Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and, reflecting the April 2001 agreement between Government and Railtrack, in the appendices to the Regulator's published letter to Railtrack of 9 April 2001.

  Road Maintenance (Scotland)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about road maintenance contracts. [39136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Road maintenance contracts in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  DTLR officials regularly meet Scottish Executive officials in the fora of the Roads Liaison Group and its associated boards, which were set up last year to bring together representatives of all highway authorities in the UK to discuss and advise on issues relating to the construction and maintenance of highways.

  Traffic Calming
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to groups of residents where the Local Government Ombudsman rules against a local authority over the validity of a consultation prior to the introduction of a traffic calming scheme, but decides to take no further action. [38450]

  Ms Keeble
  It is for individual local authorities to consider what action to take following a recommendation from the Local Government Ombudsman.

  Rough Sleepers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rough sleepers were counted in market towns in the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [37799]

  Ms Keeble
  On 3 December 2001 the Prime Minister announced that the Rough Sleepers Unit had achieved its target of reducing rough sleeping by at least two-thirds by 2002.

  Local authorities and voluntary agencies conduct rough sleeping counts and collate the information. Tables showing all the local authority estimates and street count results for 1998, 1999, 2000 and the latest figures for 2001 were placed in the Libraries of the House on 11 December 2001. Local authorities not listed in the tables for those years submitted either an estimate of 0-10 or no estimate in their HIP returns.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information was provided to him by the administrator
  1519W
  about the total level of (a) short-term and (b) long-term indebtedness of Railtrack at the point of implementation of the administration order. [39428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the extension of the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty to cars with engines up to 1200cc. [38522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not yet undertaken any formal analysis of the raising of the threshold for the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty to cars with engines up to 1200cc. We intend to assess in due course the impact of the range of reforms to vehicle excise duty for cars introduced between 1999 and 2001.

  Shoreham Port Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means the current vacancies on the Board of Shoreham Port Authority have been publicised. [39238]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current vacancies on the Shoreham Port Authority were advertised in the local and regional press, including:

  The Evening Argus

  The Brighton & Hove Leader

  The South Coast Leader

  The Mid-Sussex Leader

  Scoop

  Fishersgate job website

  Appointments South East (Argus and Kent Messenger)

  The Worthing Herald

  The Shoreham Herald

  The Lancing Gazette

  The West Sussex Gazette

  The Chichester Observer

  The Bognor Observer

  The Littlehampton Observer

  The Eastbourne Herald

  The Eastbourne Advertiser

  and the free press in Worthing, Shoreham, Lancing and Littlehampton.

  The Trades Union Congress were also invited to nominate candidates for one of the advertised posts.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what opportunities constituents of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham living in the vicinity of Shoreham Harbour have to be considered as recruits to the Board of the Shoreham Port Authority. [39239]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Currently, three appointments to the Shoreham Port Authority are made directly by the Secretary of State. These three appointments are publicly advertised and it is open to all who meet the criteria as set in the advertisement to apply for those posts.
  1520W
  Six other appointments are made by the Secretary of State following consultation with various stakeholder groups. The practice is for those groups to nominate appropriate candidates based on a criteria set by the Shoreham Port Authority.

  Planning Applications
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under what conditions he will call in planning applications in an area of outstanding natural beauty. [39247]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State's general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. Local planning authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their areas and it is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

  There will be occasions, however, when the Secretary of State may consider it necessary to call in a planning application to determine himself instead of leaving it to the local planning authority. His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need to be decided by the Secretary of State rather than at local level. Each case is, however, considered on its own facts.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the conditions for granting industrial planning permission in an area designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. [39248]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 7 sets out national planning guidance for the Countryside including areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). It states that planning policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape, and that the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, though it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the area. PPG7 also states that major projects should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have occurred involving buses and (i) other buses, (ii) other road vehicles and (iii) pedestrians in each year since 1997. [38840]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the tables which follow. Figures for 2001 are not yet available. The figures shown relate to accidents on public roads in Great Britain.
  1521W

  (i) Occupant casualties in two-vehicle accidents involving a bus or coach with another bus or coach with another bus or coach

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1997

  0

  339

  1998

  0

  347

  1999

  0

  321

  2000

  0

  424

  (ii) Occupant casualties in two-vehicle accidents involving a bus or coach and another type of vehicles1

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1997

  46

  6,733

  1998

  40

  7,384

  1999

  41

  7,409

  2000

  48

  7,322

  1 Includes casualties in both vehicles involved but excludes pedestrian casualties.

  (iii) Pedestrian casualties hit by a bus or coach: Great Britain

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1997

  55

  1,706

  1998

  62

  1,723

  1999

  69

  1,906

  2000

  608

  1,963

  In addition to those casualties shown in tables (i), (ii) and (iii) there were some bus or coach occupants casualties in single-vehicle accidents and additional vehicle occupant casualties in accidents which involved a bus or coach and more than one other vehicle. All of those have been included in the following table which shows all casualties in accidents which involved at least one bus or coach.

  All casualties1in accidents involving at least one bus or coach

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1997

  129

  15,485

  1998

  152

  16,081

  1999

  145

  16,567

  2000

  149

  16,412

  1 Includes pedestrians, bus and coach occupants and the occupants of other vehicles.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate revenues from council tax and business rates(a) for the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) for each constituent nation of the UK in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [39327]

  Mr. Whitehead
  The table gives the estimated net yield from business rates for 2001–02 and 2002–03 for England. In addition the estimated council tax net yield in England for 2001–02 is shown. This information is based on returns provided by English local authorities to the Department. No estimate of the council tax yield for 2002–03 is yet available.

  2001–02 £ billion

  2002–03 £ billion

  Business Rates (a)

  14.223

  14.857

  Council Tax (b)

  15.245

  n/a

  (a) Net of reliefs but including allowances for losses in collection and cost of collection.

  (b) Including council tax funded by benefit.

  1522W
  Figures are not available for the United Kingdom as a whole. Information on business rates and council tax in Wales and Scotland are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive respectively. Information on rates in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority
  Peter Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what directions have been given to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority regarding security measures since 11 September 2001; by whom; and why such directions were given. [38673]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials from the Transport Security Division are responsible for interfacing with the railways industry on security requirements. These requirements are contained in the National Railways Security Programme. Further guidance is issued to the industry, including Strathclyde Passenger Transport, on a regular basis. This system establishes appropriate security standards for industry.

  Further advice is issued in the format of Railway Security Circulars which provide a mechanism to update the National Railways Security Programme. These are sent to a nominated security contact within each railway-affiliated company, and are then disseminated internally to relevant parties.

  Railway Security Circulars are usually issued on a monthly basis. However, since the attacks on the United States of America on 11 September, my officials have issued eight such Circulars to the industry. The content of the Circulars is restricted for obvious reasons but has included advice on issues as divergent as Driver Cab Security and Station Searches. The Circulars have been issued to advise the railways industry on the measures required to safeguard members of the travelling public, staff and the UK's rail infrastructure itself, from terrorist attack.

  Local Strategic Partnerships
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome is of the accreditation of local strategic partnerships in the areas due to receive neighbourhood renewal funds for 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [40165]

  Ms Keeble
  I am pleased to announce that 87 out of 88 Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in England's most deprived areas will today be accredited. LSPs bring together local authorities, public sector agencies, local people, the voluntary sector and business, to identify local priorities and implement strategies to meet them. They lead efforts to close the gap in living standards and opportunities between the most deprived neighbourhoods and other areas, and are key to delivery of the Government's National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

  Accreditation follows a process of self-assessment by LSPs and close working with Government Offices. It is only the first stage on the way to better local delivery and a number of partnerships have further work to do to ensure they are fully effective, inclusive and able to

  1523W
  deliver better services on the ground. Government Offices will be writing to those LSPs setting out the areas of concern. They will continue to work with all LSPs to secure ongoing improvement, and we will monitor progress closely.

  Walsall LSP has not yet made sufficient progress against the criteria and is therefore not recommended for accreditation at this stage. This will be subject to review on 28 March. Where accreditation has been deferred, Neighbourhood Renewal Funds (NRF) will be maintained at 67 per cent. of the 2002–03 NRF rate (the same level as funding for 2001–02). As soon as the LSP has undergone a successful review with the relevant Government Office the remaining amounts will be released. Details of NRF allocations for every LSP for 2002/03 are attached.1

  1 Subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Allocations2

  Local Authority Name

  NRF Allocation 2001–02 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2002–03 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2003–04 (£m)

  NRF Total Over 3 Years (£m)

  Allerdale

  0.428

  0.642

  0.855

  1.925

  Ashfield

  0.482

  0.723

  0.964

  2.168

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.816

  1.225

  1.633

  3.673

  Barnsley

  2.722

  4.083

  5.444

  12.249

  Barrow-in-Furness

  0.92

  1.379

  1.838

  4.137

  Birmingham

  11.022

  16.533

  22.043

  49.598

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2.168

  3.251

  4.335

  9.754

  Blackpool

  1.504

  2.256

  3.008

  6.768

  Bolsover

  0.734

  1.102

  1.469

  3.305

  Bolton

  2.712

  4.069

  5.426

  12.207

  Bradford

  4.906

  7.359

  9.812

  22.077

  Brent

  1.14

  1.709

  2.279

  5.128

  Brighton & Hove

  0.684

  1.027

  1.369

  3.08

  Bristol

  1.782

  2.674

  3.565

  8.022

  Burnley

  0.636

  0.955

  1.273

  2.865

  Camden

  2.11

  3.164

  4.219

  9.492

  Coventry

  2.644

  3.967

  5.290

  11.901

  Croydon

  0.29

  0.436

  0.581

  1.307

  Derby

  1.626

  2.438

  3.250

  7.314

  Derwentside

  0.742

  1.112

  1.482

  3.336

  Doncaster

  4.394

  6.592

  8.790

  19.777

  Dudley

  0.76

  1.140

  1.521

  3.421

  Ealing

  0.458

  0.688

  0.917

  2.063

  Easington

  2.216

  3.325

  4.433

  9.975

  Enfield

  0.93

  1.395

  1.860

  4.184

  Gateshead

  2.322

  3.482

  4.643

  10.447

  Great Yarmouth

  0.994

  1.490

  1.987

  4.471

  Greenwich

  1.94

  2.911

  3.881

  8.733

  Hackney

  5.882

  8.824

  11.765

  26.472

  Halton

  1.964

  2.946

  3.928

  8.839

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.516

  0.775

  1.033

  2.325

  Haringey

  2.668

  4.001

  5.335

  12.004

  Hartlepool

  1.568

  2.353

  3.138

  7.059

  Hastings

  0.688

  1.031

  1.375

  3.094

  Hyndburn

  0.646

  0.970

  1.294

  2.91

  Islington

  3.136

  4.703

  6.270

  14.108

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.54

  0.811

  1.081

  2.431

  Kerrier

  0.806

  1.208

  1.610

  3.624

  Kingston upon Hull

  3.754

  5.630

  7.507

  16.892

  Kirklees

  1.496

  2.244

  2.992

  6.732

  Knowsley

  3.696

  5.543

  7.391

  16.63

  Lambeth

  1.21

  1.816

  2.422

  5.448

  Leeds

  4.198

  6.297

  8.396

  18.89

  Leicester

  4.188

  6.283

  8.377

  18.848

  Lewisham

  1.226

  1.839

  2.453

  5.518

  1524W

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Allocations2

  Local Authority Name

  NRF Allocation 2001–02 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2002–03(£m)

  NRF Allocation 2003–04 (£m)

  NRF Total Over 3 years (£m)

  Lincoln

  0.2

  0.300

  0.400

  0.9

  Liverpool

  10.066

  15.100

  20.133

  45.298

  Luton

  0.754

  1.132

  1.510

  3.397

  Manchester

  10.298

  15.446

  20.595

  46.339

  Mansfield

  1.15

  1.724

  2.299

  5.172

  Middlesbrough

  2.624

  3.937

  5.249

  11.811

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3.422

  5.132

  6.843

  15.397

  Newham

  6.666

  9.999

  13.332

  29.997

  North Tyneside

  1.536

  2.305

  3.074

  6.915

  Nottingham

  4.622

  6.934

  9.246

  20.803

  Oldham

  2.336

  3.505

  4.674

  10.516

  Pendle

  0.98

  1.471

  1.961

  4.412

  Penwith

  0.414

  0.622

  0.829

  1.865

  Plymouth

  1.058

  1.586

  2.114

  4.757

  Portsmouth

  0.478

  0.717

  0.957

  2.152

  Preston

  1.26

  1.890

  2.520

  5.671

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.736

  2.604

  3.472

  7.812

  Rochdale

  2.438

  3.658

  4.878

  10.975

  Rotherham

  1.834

  2.751

  3.669

  8.254

  Salford

  2.72

  4.081

  5.441

  12.242

  Sandwell

  4.026

  6.038

  8.051

  18.114

  Sedgefield

  0.57

  0.854

  1.139

  2.563

  Sefton

  2.816

  4.223

  5.631

  12.671

  Sheffield

  4.79

  7.186

  9.581

  2.557

  South Tyneside

  2.692

  4.037

  5.382

  12.11

  Southampton

  0.43

  0.646

  0.862

  1.939

  Southwark

  3.956

  5.934

  7.912

  17.803

  St Helens

  1.936

  2.905

  3.873

  8.714

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1.926

  2.889

  3.852

  8.667

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2.016

  3.025

  4.034

  9.075

  Sunderland

  3.582

  5.373

  7.164

  16.119

  Tameside

  0.67

  1.005

  1.340

  3.015

  Tower Hamlets

  5.312

  7.968

  10.624

  23.903

  Wakefield

  2.22

  3.329

  4.439

  9.989

  Walsall

  3.56

  5.341

  7.122

  16.024

  Waltham Forest

  1.276

  1.915

  2.553

  5.745

  Wandsworth

  0.2

  0.300

  0.400

  0.9

  Wansbeck

  0.69

  1.034

  1.379

  3.104

  Wear Valley

  0.854

  1.280

  1.706

  3.839

  Westminster

  0.748

  1.123

  1.497

  3.369

  Wigan

  1.362

  2.044

  2.725

  6.131

  Wirral

  2.538

  3.806

  5.075

  11.419

  Wolverhampton

  2.964

  4.446

  5.928

  13.339

  Totals

  200.000

  300.000

  400.000

  900.000

  2 Subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  were the administrative costs of the South West
  Regional Development Agency in the past three years. [37293]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The administrative costs for the SW RDA for the past two years were as follows. The figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Year

  Annual Review £000 (accruals outturn)

  1999–2000

  8,326

  2000–01

  8,523

  Departmental Minutes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the minutes from formal meetings which have taken place since 11 February between the Department's Permanent Secretary and(a) the Department's Director of Communications, (b) his own special adviser, (c) the Prime Minister and (d) the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy regarding (i) the role and conduct and (ii) the resignation of (A) the Department's Director of Communications and (B) his own special adviser; and if he will make a statement. [39228]

  Mr. Byers
  Under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not the practice to disclose details of internal meetings or communications. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on Tuesday 26 February to this House and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Resignations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list statements he made to the press about the departure of his Chief Press Officer Mr. Martin Sixsmith and at what time Mr. Sixsmith resigned; [39216]

  (2) whether there was a link between the departure of his special adviser and that of his Chief Press Officer. [39217]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer to the Hon. Member to the statement I made on Tuesday 26 February to this House and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he will resign. [39375]

  Mr. Byers
  No.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the time and date of meetings which have taken place since 11 February between the Department's Permanent Secretary and(a) the Department's Director of Communications, (b) his special adviser, (c) the Prime Minister and (d) the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy regarding (i) the role and conduct and (ii) the resignation of (A) the Department's Director of Communications and (B) his own special adviser. [39227]

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence since 11 February between himself and(a) the Department's Director of Communications, (b) his own special adviser, (c) the Prime Minister and (d) the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy
  1526w
  regarding (i) the role and conduct and (ii) the resignation of (A) the Department's Director of Communications and (B) his own special adviser; and if he will make a statement; [39229]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence between himself and his Permanent Secretary since 11 February regarding (a) the role and conduct of the Department's Director of Communications, (b) the role and conduct of his own special adviser and (c) the resignation of (i) the Department's Director of Communications and (ii) his own special adviser; and if he will make a statement. [39230]

  Mr. Don. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the time and date of meetings which have taken place since 11 February between himself and(a) the Department's Permanent Secretary, (b) the Department's Director of Communications, (c) his own special adviser, (d) the Prime Minister and (e) the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy regarding (i) the role and conduct and (ii) the resignation of (A) the Department's Director of Communications and (B) his own special adviser. [39222]

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the minutes from formal meetings which have taken place since 11 February between himself and(a) the Department's Permanent Secretary, (b) the Department's Director of Communications, (c) his own special adviser, (d) the Prime Minister and (e) the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy regarding (i) the role and conduct and (ii) the resignation of (A) the Department's Director of Communications and (B) his own special adviser; and if he will make a statement. [39223]

  Mr. Byers
  Under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not the practice to disclose details of internal meetings or communications. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 563–65 and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will (1) make a statement on the timetable of events corresponding to the resignation from his Department on 15 February of(a) the DTLR Director of Communications and (b) his own special adviser. [39226]

  (2) state the date and time at which (a) he and (b) his Department's Permanent Secretary accepted (i) a letter and (ii) verbal notice of resignation from his Department from (A) the Department's Director of Communications and (b) his own special adviser. [39225]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the Hon. Member to the statement I made on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 563–65 and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  1527W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the letters of resignation from this Department from(a) the Department's Director of Communications and (b) his own special adviser received on or after 15 February. [39221]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary for my Department, made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS (Case Numbers)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases were handled by each lawyer per year,

  CPS Cases by Count Type and by Lawyer

  1999–2000

  Cases finalised by Court Type

  Lawyers @ 30.9.1999

  Crown

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Magistrates

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Total

  Per lawyer

  42 Areas

  1,769.4

  124,348

  7.98

  70

  1,434,194

  92.02

  811

  1,558,612

  881

  P01—Avon & Somerset

  44.3

  3,289

  0.21

  74

  37,025

  91.67

  836

  40,388

  912

  P02—Bedfordshire

  17.0

  1,052

  0.07

  62

  11,652

  91.27

  685

  12,766

  751

  P03—Cambridgeshire

  16.1

  1,444

  0.09

  90

  17,772

  92.06

  1,104

  19,306

  1,199

  P04—Cheshire

  31.5

  2,258

  0.14

  72

  23,297

  90.91

  739

  25,627

  813

  P06—Cleveland

  23.5

  1,748

  0.11

  74

  21,255

  92.10

  905

  23,077

  983

  P07—Cumbria

  21.4

  983

  0.06

  46

  16,362

  94.08

  764

  17,391

  812

  P08—Derbyshire

  29.6

  2,404

  0.15

  81

  29,990

  89.41

  708

  23,475

  792

  P09—Devon & Cornwall

  37.4

  2,545

  0.16

  68

  30,369

  92.08

  812

  32,982

  882

  P10—Dorset

  15.3

  1,257

  0.08

  82

  13,713

  91.10

  896

  15,052

  984

  P11—Durham

  19.0

  1,434

  0.09

  75

  18,888

  92.60

  994

  20,397

  1,074

  P12—Dyfed-Powys

  15.8

  848

  0.05

  54

  15,190

  94.40

  961

  16,092

  1,018

  P13—Essex

  36.4

  2,936

  0.19

  81

  29,236

  90.65

  803

  32,253

  886

  P14—Gloucestershire

  15.4

  975

  0.06

  63

  16,568

  94.10

  1.074

  17,606

  1,142

  P15—Greater Manchester

  117.7

  7,600

  0.49

  65

  97,430

  92.71

  828

  105,095

  893

  P16—Gwent

  23.5

  1,514

  0.10

  64

  20,370

  92.81

  867

  21,948

  934

  P17—Hampshire

  50.7

  4,181

  0.27

  82

  43,333

  91.04

  854

  47,596

  938

  P18—Hertfordshire

  24.8

  1,676

  0.11

  68

  18,813

  91.52

  758

  20,557

  829

  P19—Humberside

  26.9

  2,140

  0.14

  79

  24,212

  91.60

  899

  26,431

  981

  P20—Kent

  39.7

  3,037

  0.19

  77

  35,507

  91.94

  895

  38,621

  974

  P21—Lancashire

  66.8

  4,169

  0.27

  62

  60,378

  93.45

  904

  64,609

  967

  P22—Leicestershire

  26.9

  2,320

  0.15

  86

  23,497

  90.71

  872

  25,903

  962

  P23—Lincolnshire

  18.9

  918

  0.06

  49

  15,674

  94.19

  830

  16,641

  881

  P24—Merseyside

  68.2

  4,122

  0.26

  60

  49,422

  92.20

  724

  53,604

  786

  P25—Metropolitan & City

  265.2

  18,484

  1.19

  70

  175,372

  90.43

  661

  193,925

  731

  P26—Norfolk

  24.4

  1,492

  0.10

  61

  19,607

  92.66

  802

  21,160

  886

  P27—Northamptonshire

  14.4

  1,334

  0.09

  93

  14,118

  90.82

  982

  15,545

  1,082

  P28—Northumbria

  62.4

  4,194

  0.27

  67

  5,498

  92.87

  889

  59,759

  958

  P29—North Wales

  27.1

  1,062

  0.07

  39

  18,584

  94.41

  685

  19,685

  726

  P30—North Yorkshire

  23.0

  1,391

  0.09

  60

  19,134

  92.95

  830

  20,585

  893

  P31—Nottinghamshire

  47.2

  3,856

  0.25

  82

  31,089

  88.76

  658

  35,027

  741

  P32—South Wales

  59.2

  3,919

  0.25

  66

  45,594

  92.12

  787

  59,579

  855

  P33—South Yorkshire

  43.6

  4,424

  0.28

  101

  38,181

  89.40

  875

  42,706

  979

  P34—Staffordshire

  36.5

  2,407

  0.15

  66

  32,325

  92.89

  887

  34,798

  955

  P35—Suffolk

  17.6

  1,298

  0.08

  74

  13,827

  90.97

  786

  15,199

  864

  P36—Surrey

  22.1

  1,082

  0.07

  49

  17,850

  94.04

  809

  18,982

  860

  P37—Sussex

  37.4

  2,275

  0.15

  61

  28,458

  92.41

  762

  30,794

  824

  P38—Thames Valley

  53.0

  2,479

  0.16

  47

  43,403

  94.50

  819

  45,929

  866

  P39—Warwickshire

  12.0

  695

  0.04

  58

  9,258

  92.48

  770

  10,011

  832

  P40—West Mercia

  32.6

  1,850

  0.12

  57

  26,982

  93.40

  826

  28,889

  885

  P41—West Midlands

  102.2

  8,404

  0.54

  82

  83,135

  90.74

  813

  91,621

  896

  P42—West Yorkshire

  86.4

  8,109

  0.52

  94

  85,817

  91.28

  993

  94,020

  1,088

  P43—Wiltshire

  16.0

  743

  0.05

  46

  14,009

  94.67

  876

  14,798

  925

  1528W
  in each region, since the inception of the CPS; and of these cases how many were cases for the (a) magistrates' court and (b) Crown court, expressed as a percentage of total cases and as an absolute figure. [35946]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: It is not possible to provide information about the numbers of cases handled by lawyers since the inception of the CPS in 1986 without incurring disproportionate costs.

  The tables show absolute and percentage figures of finalised cases for each year since April 1999 when the CPS restructured into 42 Areas. The tables also show the total number of cases finalised by court type for each financial year, the number of lawyers in post at 30 September (the midpoint of each financial year) as well as the number of cases notionally handled by each lawyer.
  1529W

  CPS Cases by Count Type and by Lawyer

  2000–01

  Cases finalised by Court Type

  Lawyers @ 30.9.2000

  Crown

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Magistrates

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Total

  Per lawyer

  42 Areas

  1,739.8

  115,732

  7.87

  67

  1,354,713

  92.13

  779

  1,470,445

  845

  P01—Avon & Somerset

  41.0

  2,961

  0.20

  72

  32,032

  91.54

  781

  34,993

  854

  P02—Bedfordshire

  16.0

  960

  0.07

  60

  10,787

  91.83

  674

  11,747

  734

  P03—Cambridgeshire

  17.8

  1,363

  0.09

  76

  13,073

  90.56

  734

  14,436

  810

  P04—Cheshire

  30.2

  3,149

  0.15

  71

  23,089

  91.49

  764

  25,238

  835

  P06—Cleveland

  21.8

  1,746

  0.12

  80

  20,107

  92.01

  922

  21,853

  1,002

  P07—Cumbria

  23.0

  1,170

  0.08

  51

  13,848

  92.21

  601

  15,018

  652

  P08—Derbyshire

  26.2

  2,487

  0.17

  95

  19,459

  88.67

  744

  21,946

  839

  P09—Devon & Cornwall

  36.9

  2,193

  0.15

  59

  29,033

  92.98

  787

  31,226

  846

  P10—Dorset

  14.0

  1,069

  0.07

  76

  13,959

  92.89

  998

  15,028

  1,075

  P11—Durham

  22.0

  1,285

  0.09

  58

  15,778

  92.47

  716

  17,063

  774

  P12—Dyfed-Powys

  19.4

  722

  0.05

  37

  13,660

  94.98

  703

  14,382

  741

  P13—Essex

  34.8

  2,261

  0.15

  65

  25,625

  91.89

  736

  27,886

  801

  P14—Gloucestershire

  15.4

  763

  0.05

  49

  14,342

  94.95

  930

  15,105

  980

  P15—Greater Manchester

  117.5

  7,426

  0.51

  63

  93,291

  92.63

  794

  100,717

  857

  P16—Gwent

  22.5

  1,266

  0.09

  56

  21,529

  94.45

  957

  22,795

  1,013

  P17—Hampshire

  49.5

  3,975

  0.27

  80

  43,277

  91.59

  875

  47,252

  955

  P18—Hertfordshire

  22.8

  1,460

  0.10

  64

  19,344

  92.98

  847

  20,804

  911

  P19—Humberside

  28.6

  1,877

  0.13

  66

  22,942

  92.44

  801

  24,819

  867

  P20—Kent

  39.8

  2,948

  0.20

  74

  32,160

  91.60

  809

  35,108

  883

  P21—Lancashire

  60.8

  3,908

  0.27

  64

  57,800

  93.67

  951

  61,708

  1,015

  P22—Leicestershire

  28.0

  2,183

  0.15

  78

  22,400

  91.12

  799

  24,583

  877

  P23—Lincolnshire

  18.3

  961

  0.07

  53

  15,829

  94.28

  866

  16,790

  919

  P24—Merseyside

  67.6

  4,301

  0.29

  64

  48,467

  91.85

  717

  52,768

  781

  P25—Metropolitan & City

  252.6

  17,014

  1.16

  67

  162,316

  90.51

  643

  179,330

  710

  P26—Norfolk

  22.8

  1,415

  0.10

  62

  18,245

  92.80

  799

  19,660

  861

  P27—Northamptonshire

  16.6

  1,089

  0.07

  66

  15,532

  93.45

  935

  16,621

  1,000

  P28—Northumbria

  68.0

  3,948

  0.27

  58

  53,527

  93.13

  788

  57,475

  846

  P29—North Wales

  24.3

  1,089

  0.07

  45

  17,059

  94.00

  701

  18,148

  746

  P30—North Yorkshire

  23.5

  1,351

  0.09

  57

  15,774

  92.11

  671

  17,125

  728

  P31—Nottinghamshire

  44.0

  3,242

  0.22

  74

  31,185

  90.58

  709

  34,427

  782

  P32—South Wales

  58.8

  3,306

  0.22

  56

  46,641

  93.38

  793

  49,947

  849

  P33—South Yorkshire

  45.7

  4,244

  0.29

  93

  36,531

  89.59

  800

  40,775

  893

  P34—Staffordshire

  33.6

  2,235

  0.15

  66

  28,810

  92.80

  856

  31,045

  923

  P35—Suffolk

  16.6

  1,058

  0.07

  64

  12,692

  92.31

  764

  13,750

  827

  P36—Surrey

  17.6

  963

  0.07

  55

  15,265

  94.07

  866

  16,228

  921

  P37—Sussex

  35.6

  2,329

  0.16

  65

  27,220

  92.12

  764

  29,549

  829

  P38—Thames Valley

  50.1

  2,348

  0.16

  47

  38,010

  94.18

  759

  40,358

  806

  P39—Warwickshire

  12.0

  602

  0.04

  50

  8,935

  93.69

  743

  9,537

  793

  P40—West Mercia

  30.8

  1,933

  0.13

  63

  27,569

  93.45

  896

  29,502

  959

  P41—West Midlands

  107.9

  8,925

  0.61

  83

  82,839

  90.27

  768

  91,764

  851

  P42—West Yorkshire

  89.1

  6,565

  0.45

  74

  81,482

  92.54

  914

  88,047

  988

  P43—Wiltshire

  16.0

  642

  0.04

  40

  13,250

  95.38

  828

  13,892

  868

  CPS Cases by Count Type and by Lawyer

  2001–02 (to December 2001 only)

  Cases finalised by Court Type

  Lawyers @ 30.9.2001

  Crown

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Magistrates

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Total

  Per lawyer

  42 Areas

  1,817.6

  83,417

  7.65

  46

  1,006,595

  92.35

  554

  1,090,012

  600

  P01—Avon & Somerset

  48.4

  1,907

  0.17

  39

  22,435

  92.17

  463

  24,342

  503

  P02—Bedfordshire

  16.8

  664

  0.06

  39

  8,626

  92.85

  513

  9,290

  552

  P03—Cambridgeshire

  18.8

  954

  0.09

  51

  9,086

  90.50

  483

  10,040

  533

  P04—Cheshire

  37.0

  1,401

  0.13

  38

  15,697

  91.81

  424

  17,098

  462

  P06—Cleveland

  22.9

  1,435

  0.13

  63

  15,683

  91.62

  684

  17,118

  747

  P07—Cumbria

  22.4

  821

  0.08

  37

  10,365

  92.66

  462

  11,186

  499

  P08—Derbyshire

  27.7

  1,854

  0.17

  67

  14,667

  88.78

  530

  16,521

  597

  P09—Devon & Cornwall

  39.1

  1,684

  0.15

  43

  19,291

  91.97

  493

  20,975

  536

  P10—Dorset

  17.0

  664

  0.06

  39

  9,414

  93.41

  554

  10,078

  594

  P11—Durham

  24.1

  1,177

  0.11

  49

  11,818

  90.94

  491

  12,995

  540

  P12—Dyfed Powys

  21.4

  569

  0.05

  27

  9,853

  94.54

  460

  10,422

  487

  P13—Essex

  39.6

  1,477

  0.14

  37

  19,306

  92.89

  487

  20,783

  524

  P14—Gloucestershire

  16.2

  608

  0.06

  37

  11,057

  94.79

  681

  11,665

  719

  P15—Greater Manchester

  120.6

  5,376

  0.49

  45

  68,580

  92.73

  569

  73,956

  613

  P16—Gwent

  28.3

  1,016

  0.09

  36

  14,590

  93.49

  515

  15,606

  551

  P17—Hampshire

  48.7

  2,623

  0.24

  54

  28,112

  91.47

  577

  30,735

  631

  P18—Hertfordshire

  25.0

  1,246

  0.11

  50

  14,633

  92.15

  584

  15,879

  634

  P19—Humberside

  28.8

  1,356

  0.12

  47

  16,627

  92.46

  577

  17,983

  624

  P20—Kent

  45.8

  1,965

  0.18

  43

  23,563

  92.30

  514

  25,528

  557

  P21—Lancashire

  67.9

  2,979

  0.27

  44

  39,455

  92.98

  581

  42,434

  625

  P22—Leicestershire

  28.7

  1,560

  0.14

  54

  16,989

  91.59

  591

  18,549

  645

  P23—Lincolnshire

  16.2

  610

  0.06

  38

  14,690

  96.01

  909

  15,300

  947

  P24—Merseyside

  68.7

  3,344

  0.31

  49

  30,972

  90.26

  451

  34,316

  500

  P25—Metropolitan & City

  247.3

  12,923

  1.19

  52

  125,398

  90.66

  507

  138,321

  559

  P26—Norfolk

  24.2

  891

  0.08

  37

  13,635

  93.87

  564

  14,526

  600

  P27—Northamptonshire

  17.8

  670

  0.06

  38

  11,738

  94.60

  661

  12,408

  698

  1530W 1531W

  CPS Cases by Court Type and by Lawyer

  2001–02 (to December 2001 only)

  Cases finalised by Court Type

  Lawyers @ 30.9.2001

  Crown

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Magistrates

  % of total

  Per lawyer

  Total

  Per lawyer

  P28—Northumbria

  69.5

  2,842

  0.26

  41

  38,390

  93.11

  552

  41,232

  593

  P29—North Wales

  21.4

  810

  0.07

  38

  13,011

  94.14

  609

  13,821

  647

  P30—North Yorkshire

  22.8

  758

  0.07

  33

  11,212

  93.67

  492

  11,970

  526

  P31—Nottinghamshire

  47.2

  2,259

  0.21

  48

  20,730

  90.17

  439

  22,989

  487

  P32—South Wales

  62.2

  2,654

  0.24

  43

  32,414

  92.43

  521

  35,068

  563

  P33—South Yorkshire

  41.7

  3,351

  0.31

  80

  26,703

  88.85

  640

  30,054

  720

  P34—Staffordshire

  35.5

  1,405

  0.13

  40

  19,907

  93.41

  561

  21,312

  600

  P35—Suffolk

  20.0

  691

  0.06

  34

  9,683

  93.34

  483

  10,374

  518

  P36—Surrey

  18.8

  841

  0.08

  45

  12,173

  93.54

  647

  13,014

  691

  P37—Sussex

  40.0

  1,842

  0.17

  46

  20,134

  91.62

  504

  21,976

  550

  P38—Thames Valley

  54.3

  1,682

  0.15

  31

  42,047

  96.15

  774

  43,729

  805

  P39—Warwickshire

  10.0

  457

  0.04

  46

  7,232

  94.06

  721

  7,689

  767

  P40—West Mercia

  32.7

  1,286

  0.12

  39

  20,764

  94.17

  634

  22,050

  673

  P41—West Midlands

  111.4

  6,510

  0.60

  58

  64,898

  90.88

  582

  71,408

  641

  P42—West Yorkshire

  92.0

  3,800

  0.35

  41

  60,612

  94.10

  659

  64,412

  700

  P43—Wiltshire

  18.2

  455

  0.04

  25

  10,405

  95.81

  572

  10,860

  597

  Legal Staff (Professional Development)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if there is a mandatory requirement for legal staff to participate in a continuing professional development programme. [35944]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: Yes, lawyers in the CPS are required to undertake continuous professional development (CPD) according to the requirements laid down by their particular professional body, either the Law Society or the Bar Council. The requirement exists by virtue of the individual's professional status, not their employment with the CPS. All solicitors and barristers employed by CPS are provided with adequate opportunities to satisfy the CPD requirements of their professional bodies. Many lawyers annually exceed the requirements for CPD.

  CPS is authorised to accredit CPD for in-house courses based on guidelines laid down by the Law Society and the Bar Council.

  In addition to the requirements of the professional bodies, it is mandatory for CPS lawyers to attend the following in house courses:

  Induction for new lawyers

  Direct Communication with Victims

  European Court of Human Rights training

  Diversity Awareness

  Advocacy Skills training

  Each year the CPS produces a National Training Plan, this specifies the mandatory training to be undertaken by staff to meet the requirements of new legislation and internal initiatives, this year these include the Proceeds of Crime and Racially Aggravated Crime.

  Specialist areas are also supported by mandatory training. CPS lawyers undertake training to prepare them for casework in areas such as Youth Offenders, Child Abuse, and Speaking Up for Justice.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Hyde Park
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many paying concerts and other events were held in Hyde Park in(a)1999, (b)2000 and (c) 2001; [37877]

  (2) how much the paying concerts and other events held in Hyde Park raised as a contribution to the running costs of the Royal Parks in (a)1999, (b)2000 and (c) 2001, net of the costs of repairing damage to the parks caused by the events; [37878]

  (3) how many paying concerts and other events are planned for (a)2002, (b)2003 and (c) 2004 in Hyde Park; [37879]

  (4) how much of the revenue raised by paying concerts and other events in Hyde Park is spent on Hyde Park itself. [37881]

  Mr. Caborn
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency and I have asked its Chief Executive, William Weston to reply.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Mark Field, dated 28 February 2002:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about concerts and other events in the Royal Parks, as this is an operational matter which has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency.
  In 1999 ten large events were held in Hyde Park, raising £538,216 towards the Agency's running costs; in 2000 eight large events were held, raising £586,021; and in 2001 fourteen such events raised £1,085,000. These figures are net of the cost of repairing damage to the parks caused by the events.
  All income raised by the Agency is taken into consideration when expenditure budgets are allocated to individual parks. Revenue is not allocated specifically to the park or section that raised it.
  We are contractually committed to hold thirteen large events in Hyde Park in 2002 and to staging the Prince's Trust concert in 2003. The Prince's Trust concert is the only event planned as yet for future years.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds each of the National Lottery Distribution Funds hold which are allocated but not yet distributed. [38136]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is one National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) and all the money held in it is allocated to the distributing bodies. The table shows the amount held in the NLDF for each distributor, but not drawn down at 31 December 2001—in other words its NLDF balance; and the amount committed by each distributor, but not yet paid out to project operators, at the same date.

  Distributing Body

  Amount held in NLDF at 31 December 2001 (£m)

  Balance of outstanding commitments (£m)

  Arts Council of England

  244,418,707

  260,629,000

  Film Council

  58,506,013

  57,395,466

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  32,790,612

  18,900,264

  Scottish Arts Council

  45,528,808

  33,167,092

  Arts Council of Wales

  30,786,187

  36,891,097

  Community Fund

  408,038,972

  543,131,065

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  981,827,570

  1,031,160,453

  Millennium Commission

  420,980,083

  266,400,000

  New Opportunities Fund

  748,502,904

  789,421,108

  Sports Council (England)

  415,561,569

  633,627,000

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  18,510,607

  14,593,783

  Scottish Sports Council

  74,968,465

  50,557,408

  UK Sports Council

  6,303,404

  50,291,164

  Sports Council of Wales

  39,230,023

  28,886,605

  Scottish Screen

  3,817,547

  4,768,403

  3,529,771,471

  3,819,819,908

  Departmental Buildings
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many buildings her Department operates; how many people work in each of those buildings; what the cost of maintaining each building has been in each of the past seven years; what plans her Department has to move from those buildings in the next two years; and if she will make a statement. [38133]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport occupies and manages four buildings and has done so only since 1999. Maintenance costs of buildings occupied before occupation of present buildings have been handed over to present occupants. The four buildings currently occupied are all in central London and are:

  Building

  Occupancy

  Trafalgar Place (SW1)

  344

  Oceanic House (SW1)

  103

  Grove House (WC2)

  94

  Queens Yard (W1)

  14

  A small number of staff are also located in buildings occupied by other Government Departments as a result of Machinery of Government changes following the 2001 General Election, there being insufficient room in the four buildings named above for them to be absorbed.
  1534W
  Maintenance costs are very similar from year to year except where major plant or building works are required.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Trafalgar Place

  343.3

  353.1

  372.2

  332.7

  Oceanic House

  0

  *92.0

  63.5

  81.2

  Grove House

  148.2

  147.1

  166.5

  138.6

  Queen's Yard

  0

  *28.0

  131.7

  101.5

  * occupancy began = part year only.

  There are no plans at present to move existing staff from these buildings.

  Sport England
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Sport England accounts will be laid before the House. [38142]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England's Lottery accounts were laid before the House by the Comptroller and Auditor General on 25 February and its Exchequer accounts were laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 26 February.

  Television Signals
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many homes, per constituency, in each of the last seven years have been unable to receive(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite, (c) cable and (d) none of those television signals because of their geography; how many have been unable to receive analogue television signals; and if she will make a statement. [38135]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For details of current digital television coverage, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 502W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. Further information on digital terrestrial television coverage, based on individual post codes, is available on the Digital Television Group website: www.dtg.org.uk.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by her Department in each of the last four years. [38927]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport opened a staff restaurant on 2 April 2001. Prior to that time only hospitality for meetings, in the form of hot drinks and biscuits, which combined with a vending contract, was provided at a cost of about £18,000 for each year. The predicted revenue cost of the staff restaurant on completion of 12 months operation is about £62,000 (this includes an element of start-up costs).

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost to public funds in each case is. [39024]

  Mr. Caborn
  Equipment leasing in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is limited to photocopiers. The contract was entered into in 2000 for a term of three years at fixed costs of £74,277 per annum inclusive of maintenance.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by her Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39076]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has run no publicity or advertising campaigns in the last four years.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental (special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if she will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37971]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, special advisers in this Department travelled overseas on official business on four occasions; to Venice (Italy), Berlin (Germany) and Apeldoorn and Haarlem (Netherlands); at an average cost of £232 per visit. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Special Urgency Provisions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the department; and if she will make a statement. [38706]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is no record of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport having any direct involvement in any relevant development.

  Broadcasting Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make an assessment of the costs to public service broadcasters of broadcasting channels via(a) digital satellite television, (b) digital terrestrial television and (c) digital cable television. [38954]
  1536W
  Mr. Caborn
  The costs of broadcasting television channels on each platform are a matter for the individual broadcasters and transmission companies concerned and are commercially confidential. However, approximate costs of the changes necessary at the transmission sites to deliver Digital Terrestrial Television (provided by the Independent Television Commission) are set out in the consultation document, Digital Television: The Principles for Spectrum Planning, published on 11 December 2001, copies of which are in the libraries of both Houses and on the website: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Free-to-Air Channels
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which free-to-air channels are available to consumers receiving their television via(a) digital satellite, (b) digital terrestrial and (c) digital cable. [38957]

  Mr. Caborn
  The free-to-view channels available on both Digital Terrestrial and Digital Satellite are:

  BBC1

  BBC 2

  BBC Choice

  BBC 4

  BBC News 24

  BBC Parliament (Audio Only)

  CBBC

  Cbeebies

  Channel 4

  Channel 5

  ITN News Channel

  S4C (In Wales)

  S4C 2 (In Wales)

  These channels are offered to cable operators for inclusion in their basic digital cable subscription packages.

  Free-to-view digital terrestrial also offers ITV2, (UTV2 in Ireland), Tele G (in Scotland) and a full range of National and Regional channels.

  Free-to-view digital satellite also offers more than 20 further channels and over 40 radio services.

  Electronic Programme Guides
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the regulations regarding access to the electronic programme guides on(a) digital satellite, (b) digital terrestrial and (c) digital cable. [38955]

  Mr. Caborn
  Third party access to electronic programme guides (EPGs) is regulated in accordance with relevant provisions in the licences for satellite EPGs (satellite television service licenses) digital terrestrial EPGs (digital additional service licences) and for cable services (local delivery licences).

  Each of these licences requires the licensee not to engage in any practice or enter into any arrangement which is prejudicial to fair and effective competition in

  1537W
  the provision of the licensed service and services connected with them, and to comply with any direction, code or guideline issued by the ITC for this purpose.

  Following consultation with Oftel (which has responsibilities where an EPG is an integral part of a conditional access system) and broadcasters, the ITC published a code in 1997 providing further guidance. Amongst other things, the code requires EPG providers not to discriminate between free-to-air and pay television services, to provide due prominence to public service channels, and to ensure that any agreement with other broadcasters is made on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

  Oftel also have powers to regulate Conditional Access Systems for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access for third parties. This applies to the Sky EPG on the Dsat platform.

  Grassroots Sports
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding she has given to grassroots sports in each constituency since 1992; what the most recent annual figure is; and if she will make a statement on her plans for the future of the development of grassroots sports with particular reference to South-East Cornwall constituency. [38333]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am arranging for the figures for Sport England's Lottery Community Fund and Sportsmatch funding, broken down by constituency, since 1992 and in the last available financial year, to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is not possible for Sport England to break down their exchequer funding distribution by constituency, and it is not possible for the Football Foundation to provide a breakdown of its funding by constituency. The Government's plans for the development of sport at all levels are set out in the documents "A Sporting Future For All" and "The Government's Plan for Sport."

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with her Department(a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with her Department in each of the past five years. [38760]

  Mr. Caborn
  All service contracts let by the Department were subsequently subjected to competitive tender and, in each case, awarded to different companies. No contracts have been re-won during the time that the Department has been in existence.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years. [38759]
  1538W
  Mr. Caborn
  The only contract outside the activities set out, is that for Facilities Management provision awarded to WSP Facilities Management, part of the WSP Group, in October 1999 for a period of five years. The Department has used the central framework contract with Capita for recruitment advisory services.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the 30 largest contacts 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, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38761]

  Mr. Caborn
  The full list of awarded contracts is as follows:

  Company

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Schlumberger*

  *

  0

  0

  £1.5

  £1.5

  Sema

  million

  million

  PWC

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  83,000 (2)

  96,000 (1)

  KPMG

  Nil

  23,000 (1)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  WSP FM

  Nil

  Nil

  93,000

  153,000

  153.000

  WS Atkins

  Nil

  55,000 (3)

  33,000 (2)

  Nil

  Nil

  Deloitte &

  109,000

  207,000

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Touche

  (2)

  (1)

  Capita

  Nil

  39,000 (3)

  Nil

  Nil

  26,000 **

  Pitney Bowes Management Services

  Nil

  1.4 million over five years

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  First Security

  Nil

  1.5 million over five years

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  * "SchlumbergerSema have been the Department's outsourced IT service provider since 1993. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of fees annually from 1997–98 but the payment to SchlumbergerSema for direct services was of the order of £1.5 million in 2000–01 and will be a similar figure in 2001–02. Expenditure in previous years will not have exceeded that amount.".

  **Recruitment services utilising central government framework contract.

  Includes Royal Parks Agency

  Number of contacts in brackets

  Community Buy-outs
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the capital cost of each community buy-out has been since 1994, and if she will list awards to assist in community buy-outs from the new opportunities Fund's Scottish Land Fund that have been awarded since February 2001. [38699]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since February 2001 the Scottish Land Fund has awarded a total of 41 grants to date totalling £4,661,243. Of these, 17 have been for acquisition purposes totaling £4,084,613.

  The following table gives further details of all awards made to date.
  1539W

  Scottish Land Fund Grants to Date

  Meeting Date

  Local Authority

  Applicant

  Grant Type

  Amount £

  Monthly Totals £

  April 2001

  Highland

  Kinlochleven Land Development Trust

  Development

  90,000

  April

  Highland

  Laggan Forest Trust Co Ltd

  Development

  73,172

  163,172

  May 2001

  Moray

  Deskford Community Association

  Acquisition

  12,000

  Highland

  Fernaig Community Trust

  Development

  57,796

  Perth and Kinross

  Comrie Millennium Footpath Association

  Technical Assistance

  4,381

  May

  Aberdeenshire

  Windyhills Community Group

  Technical Assistance

  9,415

  83,592

  July 2001

  Argyll and Bute

  Ross of Mull Historical Centre

  Acquistion

  52,907

  Argyll and Bute

  Mull and Iona Community Trust

  Acquistion

  33,268

  Eilean Siar

  Port of Ness Harbour Ltd

  Acquisition

  4,168

  July

  Moray

  Burghead Amenities Project

  Acquisition

  19,108

  109,451

  August 2001

  Highland

  Abriachian Forest Trust

  Development

  94,000

  Highland

  Durness Development Group

  Acquisition

  15,670

  Argyll and Bute

  Tiree Rural Development Company

  Development

  50,000

  Aberdeenshire

  Woodhead & Windyhills Community Group

  Acquisition

  90,000

  Highland

  Glen Beag Woodland Steering Group

  Technical Assistance

  300

  Highland

  Balmacara Square Management Committee

  Technical Assistance

  964

  Scottish Borders

  Gordon Community Woodland Association

  Technical Assistance

  720

  August

  Argyll and Bute

  Kilchoman Community Group

  Technical Assistance

  1,536

  253,190

  September 2001

  Highland

  Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust

  Technical Assistance

  3,375

  Highland

  Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust

  Development

  20,310

  South Ayrshire

  Ballantrae Rural Initiative Care in the Community

  Acquisition

  26,690

  September

  Argyll and Bute

  Gigha Land Steering Community Group

  Technical Assistance

  2.974

  53,349

  October 2001

  Highland

  Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust

  Development

  62,519

  Highland

  Kells Croft Steering Group

  Acquisition

  12,475

  Argyll and Bute

  Gigha Land Steering Community Group

  Acquisition

  3,525,000

  October

  Highland

  Fernaig Community Trust

  Acquisition

  11,873

  3,611,867

  November 2001

  Highland

  Acharacle Community Company

  Acquisition

  96,420

  Renfrewshire

  Howwood Community Woodland Group

  Acquisition

  13,870

  Argyll and Bute

  Iomairt Chille-Choman

  Acquisition

  30,358

  Aberdeenshire

  Mid Deeside Limited

  Technical Assistance

  3,665

  Aberdeenshire

  Mid Deeside Limited

  Technical Assistance

  4,350

  Stirling

  Trossachs Community Trust

  Acquisition

  20,000

  Highland

  North Sutherland Community Woodland Trust

  Technical Assistance

  1,491

  Renfrewshire

  Howwood Community Woodland Group

  Technical Assistance

  485

  November

  Highland

  Strathnairn Community Woodland Project

  Technical Assistance

  1,151

  171,790

  January 2002

  Inverness & Nairn

  Distillery Wood Association

  Technical Assistance

  940

  Tayside

  Highland Perthshire Communities Land Trust

  Technical Assistance

  2,910

  Grampian

  Strichen Community Park

  Technical Assistance

  176

  Borders

  Gordon Community Woodland Association

  Acquisition

  69,971

  Orkney

  North Ronaldsay Trust

  Acquisition

  50,835

  January

  Argyll & the Islands

  Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust

  Development

  90,000

  214,832

  Total

  4,661,243

  Stadiums
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding has been made available(a) from her Department and (b) from the National Lottery, for assisting in capital building projects for (i) football stadiums and (ii) rugby league stadiums in (A) 1999, (B) 2000 and (C) 2001. [37188]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Sport

  Year

  National Lottery

  Football Foundation

  Football

  1999

  1 120,000,000

  11,750,000

  2000

  292,000,000

  17,855,000

  2001

  —

  16,274,000

  Rugby League

  1999

  —

  —

  2000

  —

  —

  2001

  312,142

  —

  1 All of this funding is for the English National Stadium.

  2 This funding is for the Commonwealth Games Venue at Manchester SportCity which will eventually become the home ground for Manchester City FC.

  Targeted Lottery Initiative
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will give details of the English areas which will benefit from the targeted Lottery initiative she announced on 27 June 2001; and if she will indicate how these areas were chosen. [39862]
  1540W
  Tessa Jowell
  The Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund have selected 51 areas in England to benefit from the initiative. These are Ashfield, Barking & Dagenham, Barnsley, Basildon, Blackpool, Blyth Valley, Bolsover, Bolton, Bournemouth, Brent, Burnley, Darlington, Derby, Doncaster, Dudley, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Enfield, Great Yarmouth, Hyndburn, Kingston upon Hull, Kirklees, Knowsley, Luton, North East Lincolnshire, North Somerset, Oldham, Pendle, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Rochdale, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, Sefton, Solihull, St. Helens, Stockton-on-Tees, Swindon, Tameside, Telford and Wrekin, Tendring, Thanet, Trafford, Wakefield, Walsall, Waltham Forest, Wansbeck, Waveney, West Lancashire, Wigan and Wirral.

  The criteria I announced for the scheme were that areas should be both deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country. To select the English Fair Share areas, the two distributors have analysed which of the 100 most deprived local authority districts have received less than average funding from the Community Fund and which have received less than average funding from the other Lottery distributors collectively. Areas that have received less than average funding from either the Community Fund or from the other Distributors collectively will receive direct support from Fair Share.
  1541W
  The Fair Share initiative is one of several targeted initiatives operated by the Lottery distributors. Government will continue to encourage distributors to ensure that parts of the country benefit from Lottery funding.

  Art Exports
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the 2000–01 Annual report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art will be published. [40172]

  Dr. Howells
  The Reviewing Committee's Annual Report for 2000–01 has been published today and copies have been laid before Parliament.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Enron
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings(a) she and (b) her senior departmental officials have had with Enron and its subsidiaries in the last two years. [32436]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  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: Contact 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.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 102W, on theft and fraud, if she will make a statement on the circumstances of the incident of direct contractor fraud; and what assessment she has made of reasons for the increasing trend of theft and fraud in her Department between 1997–98 and 2000–01. [34281]

  Estelle Morris
  I reported in my answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 101W, that there had been 44 instances of direct contractor fraud since 1997–98.

  They relate to instances of suspected fraud/irregularity referred to the Department's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) for investigation and cover the European Social Fund, Schools, Training and Enterprise Councils, Teacher Pensions and miscellaneous Programme Budgets.

  The nature of the problems identified relate primarily to claims for services not properly provided or for inflated costs.

  Within my Department we have, over the last few years, run a Fraud and Control Awareness campaign to raise staff awareness as to their responsibilities for reporting and handling suspicions/allegations etc. We
  1542W
  are satisfied that those reporting systems now work well, and that, as a result, all concerns are properly reported and investigated.

  My Department recognises the importance of having sound control systems in place to combat the threat of fraud. In fact 30 per cent. of the cases investigated were identified as a result of the operation of normal control procedures.

  We regularly review the contract management arrangements in place to ensure effective control over public funds and take steps, where necessary, to enhance procedures. For example, since April 2000, in agreement with the European Commission, the Department, through its Government Offices, has introduced new financial monitoring and inspection arrangements with regard to ESF, some of which has resulted in cases being referred to SIU.

  In my earlier response, the estimated cost to the Department for 2000–01 is shown as £17.3 metre, which, when shown against the earlier years' figures, suggests a substantial increase. However this figure includes some exceptional items to the value of £14.9 metre.

  Education (Stoke)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the local education authority budget in Stoke-on-Trent has been accounted for by the Standards Fund in each year since 1999–2000. [37269]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested for Stoke-on-Trent Local Education Authority is as follows:

  1999–2000 4.4 per cent.

  1999–2001 6.3 per cent.

  1999–2002 8.7 per cent.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 231W, what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by (a) her Department, (b) her agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37914]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by my Department, in each of the last four years since May 1997 is as follows:

  1997–1998: 20,913 sq feet

  1998–1999: 20,913 sq feet

  1999–2000: 29,063 sq feet

  2000–2001: 35,363 sq feet

  The Department's agencies and other public bodies do not own any empty properties.

  Special Educational Needs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to recall the SEN Toolkit issued earlier this year; and if she will revise its guidance on the quantification in SEN statements of
  1543W
  (a) support and (b) equipment in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. [38097]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are no plans to recall the SEN Toolkit or to revise the information in it on specifying provision in statements of SEN. This information is in accordance with the guidance given on these matters in the SEN Code of Practice and with the law on specifying provision in statements.

  The Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice recently made an application to the High Court for a judicial review of the section of the SEN Toolkit on writing statements of SEN on the grounds that it was unlawful. The High Court has refused permission to bring a judicial review on consideration of the papers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if she will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37975]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 February]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, a Special Adviser in my Department travelled abroad on one occasion at a cost of £4,479. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain. All travel by Special Advisers is undertaken in accordance with rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Pupil Attainment
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of those aged 16 years achieved one or more GCSEs at grade G or above, or the equivalent, in each year since 1997. [38806]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number and percentage of 16-year-old pupils achieving one or more GCSEs at grade G or above, or the equivalent, in each year since 1997 are as follows.

  Academic Year

  Number of 16-year-olds achieving one or more GCSE/GNVQ at grade G or above

  Percentage of 16-year-olds achieving one or more GCSE/GNVQ at grade G or above

  1996–97

  541,812

  92.3

  1997–98

  537,341

  93.4

  1998–99

  545,947

  94.0

  1999–2000

  548,054

  94.4

  2000–01

  570,379

  94.5

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 16-year-olds have obtained five or more GCSEs at grades A*to G or equivalent, including English and maths in each year since 1997. [38809]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number and percentage of 16-year-olds obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A* to G or equivalent, including English and maths in each year since 1997 are as follows.
  1544W

  Academic Year

  Number of 16-year-olds obtaining 5 or more grades A*-G or equivalent, including English and maths

  Percentage of 16-year-olds obtaining 5 or more grades A*-G or equivalent, including English and maths

  1996–97

  492,226

  83.9

  1997–98

  482,198

  83.8

  1998–99

  498,587

  85.8

  1999–2000

  503,765

  86.8

  2000–01

  524,058

  86.9

  Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified teachers are employed by the Department and its associated agencies. [39008].

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not keep records of the number of qualified teachers it employs. The DfES does not have any associated agencies.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have left posts in schools in each of the past five years to take positions with the Department and its associated agencies. [39009].

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not keep records of the number of teachers that have left posts in schools in each of the past five years to take positions with the Department, DfES does not have any associated agencies.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the teacher vacancy rate was in(a) nursery/primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each constituency in England (i) in 1992, (ii) in 1997, (iii) in 2001 and (iv) at the most recent available date. [38338]

  Mr. Timms
  Data on teacher vacancies by constituency are not collected centrally. The teacher vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools by local education authority1 in January 1992, 1997 and 2001 were as follows (2001 is the most recent available year):

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1992

  1997

  2001

  1992

  1997

  2001

  City of London

  0.0

  7.7

  0.0

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  1.3

  1.3

  6.8

  1.1

  1.3

  4.1

  Greenwich

  0.1

  0.6

  2.5

  0.4

  1.8

  4.9

  Hackney

  0.6

  3.0

  6.6

  0.2

  0.2

  10.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.9

  3.6

  3.8

  1.7

  2.4

  7.1

  Islington

  0.3

  0.4

  6.1

  2.0

  3.0

  2.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.0

  0.0

  6.3

  0.0

  0.0

  6.8

  Lambeth

  1.3

  2.2

  4.1

  0.2

  0.9

  2.2

  Lewisham

  0.0

  1.8

  3.7

  0.6

  1.1

  4.9

  Southwark

  0.3

  1.9

  6.1

  2.8

  1.1

  5.7

  Tower Hamlets

  3.4

  4.2

  10.4

  1.6

  1.4

  6.7

  Wandsworth

  0.1

  2.1

  2.9

  0.9

  2.2

  4.3

  City of Westminster

  0.0

  3.2

  7.4

  2.2

  0.4

  2.2

  1545W

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1992

  1997

  2001

  1992

  1997

  2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.1

  3.8

  1.8

  0.0

  2.2

  1.6

  Barnet

  2.7

  0.8

  5.6

  0.5

  0.5

  3.3

  Bexley

  1.2

  0.1

  4.2

  0.1

  0.5

  5.3

  Brent

  0.4

  1.5

  0.9

  0.6

  1.1

  1.7

  Bromley

  0.3

  0.7

  2.7

  0.4

  0.5

  3.0

  Croydon

  0.0

  1.7

  2.2

  0.3

  0.2

  4.6

  Ealing

  1.5

  1.4

  1.3

  0.7

  0.9

  6.3

  Enfield

  1.0

  0.5

  2.7

  0.4

  0.3

  2.7

  Haringey

  4.3

  2.4

  2.4

  1.6

  2.9

  2.6

  Harrow

  0.0

  0.5

  4.2

  0.0

  0.2

  4.9

  Havering

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  1.1

  4.3

  Hillingdon

  3.4

  1.2

  1.8

  1.3

  1.0

  3.1

  Hounslow

  0.5

  0.8

  0.5

  0.3

  0.8

  1.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.0

  0.0

  2.1

  0.2

  0.6

  2.6

  Merton

  0.0

  0.8

  0.3

  0.0

  0.7

  2.8

  Newham

  4.6

  6.5

  4.5

  2.3

  3.0

  4.8

  Redbridge

  1.4

  0.2

  1.0

  0.6

  0.2

  2.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.6

  0.7

  2.0

  0.9

  0.0

  4.8

  Sutton

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  0.3

  0.3

  1.3

  Waltham Forest

  1.9

  3.8

  0.0

  1.8

  0.8

  0.9

  Birmingham

  1.7

  0.2

  0.8

  0.5

  0.6

  1.0

  Coventry

  0.8

  0.3

  0.7

  1.0

  0.7

  1.3

  Dudley

  2.5

  0.5

  0.9

  0.8

  0.1

  1.2

  Sandwell

  0.7

  0.6

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  2.5

  Solihull

  0.9

  0.1

  1.0

  1.1

  0.2

  2.3

  Walsall

  0.7

  0.4

  0.7

  0.6

  0.3

  0.8

  Wolverhampton

  0.3

  0.5

  1.8

  0.8

  0.4

  1.1

  Knowsley

  0.8

  0.1

  0.6

  0.7

  0.5

  1.1

  Liverpool

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  St. Helens

  0.3

  0.5

  0.1

  0.5

  0.5

  1.0

  Sefton

  0.0

  0.1

  0.4

  0.1

  0.3

  0.5

  Wirrall

  0.1

  0.4

  0.6

  0.0

  0.2

  0.6

  Bolton

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.6

  Bury

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  0.6

  Manchester

  0.6

  0.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.3

  0.0

  Oldham

  0.1

  1.2

  0.8

  0.5

  0.8

  0.7

  Rochdale

  1.1

  1.0

  0.5

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  Salford

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  Stockport

  0.0

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  0.1

  1.8

  Tameside

  0.7

  0.1

  0.1

  1.0

  0.5

  2.6

  Trafford

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  Wigan

  0.0

  0.7

  0.3

  0.0

  0.3

  0.6

  Barnsley

  0.2

  0.1

  0.7

  0.1

  0.0

  2.0

  Doncaster

  0.3

  0.0

  0.3

  0.2

  0.0

  0.4

  Rotherham

  0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  Sheffield

  0.2

  0.5

  0.4

  0.1

  0.3

  0.4

  Bradford

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Calderdale

  0.7

  1.5

  0.5

  0.4

  1.0

  0.4

  Kirklees

  0.2

  0.1

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  Leeds

  0.3

  0.0

  0.6

  0.6

  0.3

  1.1

  Wakefield

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  0.3

  0.0

  0.7

  Gateshead

  0.5

  0.8

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1.5

  0.4

  1.0

  0.4

  0.1

  0.9

  North Tyneside

  0.0

  0.0

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.8

  South Tyneside

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sunderland

  0.5

  0.8

  0.8

  0.5

  0.4

  0.8

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  10.0

  0.0

  Former Avon

  1.0

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  —

  Bath and North East

  Somerset

  —

  0.5

  0.9

  —

  0.0

  0.5

  City of Bristol

  —

  0.6

  1.0

  —

  0.6

  1.0

  North Somerset

  —

  1.2

  0.5

  —

  0.3

  0.6

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  0.9

  0.3

  —

  0.2

  0.4

  1546W

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1992

  1997

  2001

  1992

  1997

  2001

  Total former Avon area

  1.0

  0.8

  0.7

  0.5

  0.3

  0.7

  Former Cleveland

  0.3

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  —

  1.0

  0.3

  —

  0.8

  1.1

  Middlesbrough

  —

  0.1

  0.7

  —

  0.6

  3.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  0.8

  0.5

  —

  0.4

  2.5

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  0.4

  0.9

  —

  1.3

  1.1

  Total former Cleveland area

  0.3

  0.5

  0.6

  0.4

  0.8

  1.9

  Former Humberside

  0.6

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  —

  0.0

  0.0

  —

  0.2

  0.9

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  0.0

  0.0

  —

  0.0

  0.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  0.0

  1.5

  —

  0.0

  1.8

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  0.5

  1.2

  —

  0.5

  0.5

  Total former Humberside area

  0.6

  0.1

  0.5

  0.6

  0.2

  0.9

  Former North Yorkshire

  0.1

  —

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  0.0

  0.1

  —

  0.0

  0.4

  York

  —

  0.0

  0.4

  —

  0.0

  0.5

  Total former North Yorkshire area

  0.1

  0.0

  0.2

  0.3

  0.0

  0.4

  Former Bedfordshire

  1.6

  1.4

  —

  0.8

  0.3

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  2.3

  —

  —

  2.7

  Luton

  —

  —

  4.8

  —

  —

  3.8

  Total former Bedfordshire area

  1.6

  1.4

  3.4

  0.8

  0.3

  3.0

  Former Berkshire

  1.8

  0.1

  —

  0.7

  0.1

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  1.2

  —

  —

  3.6

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  2.8

  —

  —

  4.0

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  1.7

  —

  —

  0.2

  Reading

  —

  —

  3.7

  —

  —

  4.6

  Slough

  —

  —

  7.0

  —

  —

  6.2

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  1.2

  —

  —

  1.5

  Total former Berkshire area

  1.8

  0.1

  3.0

  0.7

  0.1

  3.0

  Former Buckinghamshire

  0.5

  0.6

  —

  0.7

  0.9

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  1.4

  —

  —

  2.0

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  1.3

  —

  —

  1.2

  Total former Buckinghamshire area

  0.5

  0.6

  1.3

  0.7

  0.9

  1.8

  Former Cambridgshire

  0.3

  0.1

  —

  0.1

  0.2

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  0.1

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  —

  0.6

  Total former Cambridgeshire area

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  Former Cheshire

  0.6

  0.4

  —

  0.5

  0.2

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  —

  0.4

  Halton

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  1.1

  1547W

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1992

  1997

  2001

  1992

  1997

  2001

  Warrington

  —

  —

  0.8

  —

  —

  0.5

  Total former Cheshire area

  0.6

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.2

  0.5

  Cornwall

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  Cumbria

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  0.1

  Former Derbyshire

  0.8

  0.7

  —

  0.5

  0.3

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  0.8

  Derby

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  1.3

  Total former Derbyshire area

  0.8

  0.7

  0.9

  0.5

  0.3

  0.9

  Former Devon

  0.9

  0.4

  —

  0.5

  0.3

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  1.5

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  0.0

  Torbay

  —

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  1.5

  Total former Devon area

  0.9

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.3

  1.0

  Former Dorset

  0.0

  0.2

  —

  0.0

  0.3

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  0.8

  —

  —

  0.5

  Poole

  —

  —

  2.9

  —

  —

  0.9

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  —

  1.0

  Total former Dorset area

  0.0

  0.2

  1.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.7

  Former Durham

  0.3

  0.2

  —

  0.4

  0.1

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  1.3

  Darlington

  —

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  2.1

  Total former Durham area

  0.3

  0.2

  0.6

  0.4

  0.1

  1.4

  Former East Sussex

  0.2

  0.8

  —

  0.7

  0.4

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  0.8

  —

  —

  1.9

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  1.1

  Total former East Sussex area

  0.2

  0.8

  0.9

  0.7

  0.4

  1.7

  Former Essex

  0.2

  0.8

  —

  0.4

  0.6

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  2.3

  —

  —

  2.4

  Southend on Sea

  —

  —

  1.4

  —

  —

  2.8

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  7.0

  —

  —

  6.9

  Total former Essex area

  0.2

  0.8

  2.7

  0.4

  0.6

  2.7

  Gloucestershire

  0.5

  0.7

  0.0

  0.2

  0.1

  0.5

  Former Hampshire

  0.6

  0.8

  —

  0.4

  0.7

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  2.3

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  6.0

  Southampton

  —

  —

  3.1

  —

  —

  3.8

  Total former Hampshire area

  0.6

  0.8

  2.3

  0.4

  0.7

  3.0

  Former Hereford and Worcester

  0.1

  0.0

  —

  0.0

  0.1

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  1.2

  —

  —

  2.0

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  0.3

  Total former Hereford and Worcester Area

  0.1

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.6

  Hertfordshire

  0.7

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  0.3

  0.6

  Isle of Wight

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  1.1

  Former Kent

  0.4

  1.2

  —

  0.7

  0.4

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  1.7

  —

  —

  1.9

  Medway

  —

  —

  2.5

  —

  —

  2.4

  Total former Kent area

  0.4

  1.2

  1.8

  0.7

  0.4

  2.0

  1548W

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1992

  1997

  2001

  1992

  1997

  2001

  Former Lancashire

  0.8

  0.2

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  —

  0.4

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  1.4

  —

  —

  2.1

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  —

  0.7

  Total former Lancashire

  0.8

  0.2

  1.0

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  Former Leicestershire

  0.5

  0.7

  —

  0.3

  0.3

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  0.9

  —

  —

  0.5

  Leicester

  —

  —

  2.3

  —

  —

  1.0

  Rutland

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  0.0

  Total former Leicestershire area

  0.5

  0.7

  1.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.6

  Lincolnshire

  0.0

  0.9

  0.3

  0.2

  0.5

  0.5

  Norfolk

  1.2

  0.7

  1.3

  0.6

  0.5

  1.3

  Northamptonshire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  0.0

  0.6

  Northumberland

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Former Nottinghamshire

  0.2

  0.0

  —

  0.1

  0.0

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  0.0

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  1.4

  —

  —

  2.7

  Total former Nottinghamshire area

  0.2

  0.0

  0.4

  0.1

  0.0

  0.6

  Oxfordshire

  0.0

  0.1

  0.5

  0.1

  0.0

  0.3

  Former Shropshire

  0.0

  0.1

  —

  0.0

  0.1

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  0.3

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  0.8

  Total former Shropshire area

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.5

  Somerset

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  Former Staffordshire

  0.0

  0.0

  —

  0.7

  0.6

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  0.6

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  —

  1.7

  Total former Staffordshire area

  0.0

  0.0

  0.6

  0.7

  0.6

  0.8

  Suffolk

  1.3

  0.8

  2.2

  1.4

  0.5

  1.6

  Surrey

  0.8

  0.6

  0.8

  0.6

  0.7

  2.1

  Warwickshire

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.1

  0.4

  1.8

  West Sussex

  0.7

  1.2

  1.4

  0.3

  0.4

  1.7

  Former Wiltshire

  1.1

  0.5

  —

  0.6

  0.4

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  0.8

  —

  —

  0.6

  Swindon

  —

  —

  0.8

  —

  —

  2.1

  Total former Wiltshire area

  1.1

  0.5

  0.8

  0.6

  0.4

  1.0

  England

  0.6

  0.6

  1.2

  0.5

  0.4

  1.4

  1 Local education authorities created by local government re-organisation in 1996, 1997 and 1998 are shown under their parent authority. To allow comparisons between years, the vacancy data for new authorities have been aggregated to give rates for the former authority areas.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers there were in the different age bands in each local education authority in January 2001. [39219]

  Mr. Timms
  The ages of qualified full time teachers in regular service in the maintained schools sector in each LEA in England at 31 March 2000 are as follows. These are the most recent data available, and are provisional.
  1549W

  Under 25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 and over

  Total

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Camden

  40

  230

  220

  170

  120

  150

  140

  60

  30

  1,150

  Greenwich

  80

  250

  30

  180

  210

  350

  250

  90

  20

  1,670

  Hackney

  —

  30

  60

  70

  140

  190

  160

  70

  20

  720

  Hammersmith

  40

  180

  130

  100

  90

  120

  100

  40

  10

  800

  Islington

  30

  190

  210

  190

  140

  160

  120

  60

  10

  1,120

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  40

  70

  50

  50

  50

  70

  30

  10

  360

  Lambeth

  40

  180

  220

  200

  180

  230

  180

  50

  20

  1,290

  Lewisham

  50

  210

  240

  210

  220

  300

  240

  90

  10

  1,570

  Southwark

  50

  210

  200

  180

  180

  230

  180

  60

  20

  1.300

  Tower Hamlets

  60

  230

  270

  280

  270

  290

  240

  80

  20

  1,740

  Wandsworth

  60

  290

  240

  160

  160

  230

  180

  70

  20

  1,400

  Westminster

  40

  220

  180

  120

  110

  110

  120

  60

  20

  980

  Barking

  110

  270

  200

  150

  180

  210

  190

  50

  10

  1,360

  Barnet

  120

  440

  360

  280

  260

  340

  320

  130

  40

  2,280

  Bexley

  100

  280

  210

  170

  250

  310

  290

  110

  20

  1,740

  Brent

  80

  250

  220

  190

  240

  290

  260

  120

  40

  1,680

  Bromley

  100

  350

  280

  210

  260

  360

  380

  120

  20

  2,100

  Croydon

  110

  360

  270

  210

  270

  390

  340

  150

  30

  2,120

  Ealing

  130

  400

  330

  200

  230

  270

  280

  110

  20

  1,960

  Enfield

  120

  450

  310

  270

  330

  380

  310

  110

  20

  2,310

  Haringey

  50

  240

  270

  270

  240

  240

  210

  100

  20

  1,640

  Harrow

  70

  220

  190

  130

  170

  230

  200

  90

  20

  1,320

  Havering

  100

  230

  200

  180

  240

  320

  240

  110

  20

  1,640

  Hillingdon

  140

  430

  270

  180

  240

  290

  250

  90

  10

  1,900

  Hounslow

  100

  340

  300

  190

  190

  250

  230

  110

  20

  1,720

  Kingston upon Thames

  50

  200

  110

  90

  90

  160

  130

  40

  10

  900

  Merton

  50

  190

  140

  110

  130

  170

  140

  70

  10

  980

  Newham

  150

  470

  350

  240

  250

  290

  230

  70

  10

  2,070

  Redbridge

  140

  410

  260

  200

  280

  290

  270

  100

  20

  1,960

  Richmond upon Thames

  40

  170

  130

  80

  100

  170

  100

  50

  10

  840

  Sutton

  60

  280

  170

  110

  140

  260

  220

  80

  20

  1,340

  Waltham Forest

  50

  240

  240

  230

  250

  340

  240

  100

  30

  1,710

  Birmingham

  390

  1,400

  1,160

  850

  1,190

  1,870

  1,500

  540

  70

  8,960

  Coventry

  100

  330

  250

  230

  340

  610

  450

  180

  30

  2,510

  Dudley

  120

  390

  280

  260

  390

  550

  410

  160

  20

  2,560

  Sandwell

  120

  420

  250

  240

  430

  580

  380

  100

  20

  2,550

  Solihull

  110

  280

  200

  160

  220

  360

  290

  80

  10

  1,720

  Walsall

  80

  300

  230

  230

  380

  560

  420

  120

  20

  2,340

  Wolverhampton

  80

  250

  230

  190

  380

  510

  340

  120

  20

  2,120

  Knowsley

  80

  230

  170

  170

  180

  320

  240

  70

  10

  1,470

  Liverpool

  90

  480

  420

  380

  540

  1,030

  780

  240

  40

  4,000

  St. Helens

  50

  190

  180

  170

  170

  360

  250

  80

  10

  1,440

  Sefton

  90

  340

  280

  250

  310

  520

  400

  190

  20

  2,400

  Wirral

  90

  300

  290

  310

  390

  650

  510

  180

  20

  2,730

  Bolton

  130

  320

  330

  240

  320

  470

  430

  130

  20

  2,390

  Bury

  60

  190

  160

  150

  190

  310

  270

  70

  10

  1,400

  Manchester

  130

  460

  460

  380

  380

  660

  600

  200

  40

  3,300

  Oldham

  90

  310

  270

  250

  290

  460

  340

  110

  20

  2,120

  Rochdale

  90

  280

  190

  160

  270

  410

  290

  90

  10

  1,770

  Salford

  80

  270

  200

  150

  210

  370

  250

  80

  10

  1,620

  Stockport

  80

  300

  280

  210

  280

  420

  400

  150

  10

  2,140

  Tameside

  70

  280

  180

  180

  210

  420

  340

  120

  10

  1,810

  Trafford

  70

  250

  230

  160

  200

  370

  300

  120

  10

  1,720

  Wigan

  100

  310

  240

  230

  450

  610

  510

  160

  20

  2,620

  Barnsley

  60

  210

  140

  160

  260

  370

  270

  80

  10

  1,550

  Doncaster

  110

  340

  260

  200

  340

  600

  530

  140

  10

  2,530

  Rotherham

  80

  270

  220

  220

  330

  540

  420

  140

  30

  2,230

  Sheffield

  80

  360

  330

  300

  440

  840

  690

  220

  20

  3,260

  Bradford

  110

  430

  450

  480

  700

  1,000

  800

  190

  40

  4,190

  Calderdale

  60

  240

  200

  170

  240

  350

  310

  90

  10

  1,670

  Kirklees

  110

  360

  310

  330

  470

  730

  570

  150

  20

  3,050

  Leeds

  230

  750

  590

  590

  690

  1,190

  1,090

  320

  50

  5,490

  Wakefield

  100

  370

  270

  220

  380

  550

  450

  140

  10

  2,490

  Gateshead

  80

  230

  180

  150

  180

  370

  260

  80

  10

  1,530

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  90

  250

  180

  210

  290

  510

  370

  100

  10

  2,010

  North Tyneside

  60

  220

  140

  160

  230

  370

  280

  100

  10

  1,560

  South Tyneside

  40

  150

  120

  120

  200

  300

  240

  120

  20

  1,290

  Sunderland

  90

  300

  250

  230

  380

  560

  480

  170

  20

  2,470

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Bath and North East Somerset

  40

  220

  150

  120

  160

  240

  210

  70

  10

  1,210

  City of Bristol

  130

  400

  350

  280

  310

  510

  440

  120

  20

  2,560

  1550W 1551W

  Under 25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 and Over

  Total

  North Somerset

  50

  180

  150

  130

  180

  250

  240

  80

  10

  1,270

  South Gloucestershire

  90

  300

  230

  200

  250

  350

  320

  110

  20

  1,850

  Hartlepool

  40

  100

  80

  60

  120

  180

  150

  30

  —

  780

  Middlesbrough

  40

  160

  120

  100

  190

  280

  270

  70

  20

  1,240

  Redcar and Cleveland

  60

  180

  120

  80

  170

  300

  240

  80

  10

  1,230

  Stockton on Tees

  70

  210

  150

  140

  230

  330

  350

  110

  10

  1,590

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  100

  220

  150

  130

  300

  500

  370

  110

  10

  1,900

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  100

  270

  210

  190

  320

  540

  450

  120

  10

  2,200

  North East Lincolnshire

  60

  150

  100

  110

  180

  350

  240

  70

  —

  1,260

  North Lincolnshire

  50

  150

  100

  80

  180

  330

  220

  60

  10

  1,180

  North Yorkshire

  130

  520

  410

  390

  540

  780

  760

  270

  30

  3,830

  York

  50

  150

  160

  110

  150

  230

  250

  70

  10

  1,180

  Bedfordshire

  100

  360

  280

  280

  430

  660

  590

  240

  30

  2,960

  Luton

  60

  200

  150

  150

  200

  300

  280

  100

  20

  1,470

  Buckinghamshire

  190

  600

  350

  280

  410

  720

  620

  210

  30

  3,400

  Milton Keynes

  80

  240

  190

  190

  240

  340

  220

  70

  10

  1.580

  Derbyshire

  220

  590

  420

  480

  740

  1,120

  1,040

  310

  30

  4,930

  City of Derby

  80

  230

  180

  200

  290

  390

  330

  80

  20

  1,790

  Dorset

  110

  390

  280

  250

  380

  530

  460

  140

  20

  2,570

  Poole

  40

  130

  100

  80

  140

  200

  180

  60

  —

  930

  Bournemouth

  30

  140

  90

  90

  120

  230

  180

  60

  10

  960

  Durham

  190

  460

  370

  360

  570

  950

  760

  250

  40

  3,950

  Darlington

  30

  100

  80

  70

  100

  200

  150

  40

  10

  770

  East Sussex

  140

  430

  400

  340

  470

  640

  520

  150

  30

  3,120

  Brighton and Hove

  40

  210

  230

  180

  200

  290

  230

  70

  10

  1,440

  Hampshire

  460

  1,350

  910

  710

  1,000

  1,650

  1,380

  510

  60

  8,020

  Portsmouth

  50

  200

  150

  130

  170

  270

  210

  90

  10

  1,270

  Southampton

  90

  250

  180

  140

  180

  280

  240

  80

  20

  1,460

  Leicestershire

  160

  610

  450

  390

  620

  980

  820

  310

  30

  4,360

  Leicester City

  100

  330

  270

  250

  350

  460

  440

  130

  10

  2,340

  Rutland

  —

  30

  20

  20

  30

  60

  50

  20

  —

  230

  Staffordshire

  270

  870

  590

  540

  950

  1,430

  1,170

  410

  30

  6,250

  Stoke-on-Trent

  90

  240

  170

  170

  250

  450

  320

  110

  10

  1,800

  Wiltshire

  120

  470

  320

  310

  370

  610

  480

  160

  10

  2,840

  Swindon

  90

  220

  160

  120

  160

  260

  210

  100

  10

  1,340

  Bracknell Forest

  40

  120

  70

  50

  90

  130

  130

  40

  10

  680

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  50

  140

  100

  90

  110

  180

  160

  80

  10

  920

  West Berkshire

  60

  240

  160

  110

  160

  240

  190

  80

  10

  1,250

  Reading

  60

  140

  100

  70

  100

  170

  140

  60

  10

  830

  Slough

  60

  160

  120

  70

  120

  150

  150

  60

  10

  900

  Wokingham

  40

  190

  110

  90

  160

  230

  220

  70

  20

  1,130

  Cambridgeshire

  180

  560

  390

  320

  470

  740

  630

  190

  20

  3,500

  City of Peterborough

  100

  240

  180

  120

  170

  300

  230

  80

  10

  1,420

  Cheshire

  220

  770

  590

  460

  730

  1,090

  960

  310

  40

  5,190

  Halton

  50

  160

  140

  130

  150

  230

  180

  50

  10

  1,100

  Warrington

  70

  290

  180

  160

  210

  320

  260

  60

  10

  1,560

  Devon

  150

  520

  500

  440

  620

  1,020

  840

  290

  40

  4,400

  City of Plymouth

  60

  270

  250

  260

  300

  390

  350

  130

  10

  2,020

  Torbay

  40

  120

  100

  80

  110

  180

  180

  60

  10

  870

  Essex

  490

  1,460

  940

  880

  1,340

  1,890

  1,550

  580

  80

  9,210

  Southend

  o60

  180

  110

  130

  170

  250

  190

  70

  20

  1,170

  Thurrock

  80

  170

  110

  90

  120

  190

  180

  60

  10

  1,020

  Herefordshire

  40

  150

  100

  90

  190

  230

  250

  80

  20

  1,150

  Worcestershire

  160

  520

  420

  350

  550

  920

  730

  220

  30

  3,890

  Kent

  500

  1,450

  980

  890

  1,470

  2,100

  1,680

  630

  100

  9,800

  Medway

  70

  320

  210

  190

  270

  390

  360

  140

  10

  1,950

  Lancashire

  320

  1,140

  920

  890

  1,340

  1,970

  1,760

  500

  60

  8,910

  Blackburn and Darwen

  60

  140

  150

  160

  220

  280

  250

  80

  10

  1,330

  Blackpool

  60

  160

  110

  100

  130

  230

  140

  50

  —

  980

  Nottinghamshire

  180

  600

  550

  500

  690

  1,260

  990

  270

  30

  5,060

  City of Nottingham

  60

  200

  180

  170

  200

  330

  280

  80

  10

  1,500

  Shropshire

  60

  250

  210

  200

  280

  440

  340

  100

  20

  1,890

  Telford and Wrekin

  50

  170

  130

  130

  190

  260

  240

  50

  10

  1,240

  Cornwall

  70

  360

  320

  340

  500

  770

  670

  220

  40

  3,300

  Cumbria

  110

  450

  410

  310

  560

  860

  730

  190

  20

  3,640

  Gloucestershire

  170

  600

  470

  380

  490

  830

  720

  210

  20

  3,880

  Hertfordshire

  510

  1,480

  910

  710

  1,010

  1,460

  1,400

  520

  70

  8,080

  Isle of Wight

  30

  110

  100

  90

  140

  230

  200

  60

  10

  960

  Lincolnshire

  240

  700

  460

  420

  590

  980

  880

  290

  40

  4,600

  Norfolk

  190

  660

  480

  500

  750

  1,290

  1,140

  430

  60

  5,490

  Northamptonshire

  260

  770

  540

  510

  690

  1,070

  860

  280

  30

  5,010

  Northumberland

  80

  270

  230

  220

  360

  570

  480

  110

  20

  2,350

  Oxfordshire

  170

  610

  490

  400

  470

  700

  700

  240

  40

  3,820

  1552W 1553W

  Under25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 and Over

  Total

  Somerset

  120

  390

  280

  310

  500

  710

  630

  180

  20

  3,140

  Suffolk

  220

  660

  440

  400

  740

  1,090

  940

  340

  50

  4,860

  Surrey

  450

  1,400

  1,020

  580

  730

  1,140

  1,020

  420

  70

  6,830

  Warwickshire

  190

  570

  350

  300

  450

  810

  690

  220

  30

  3,610

  West Sussex

  180

  790

  580

  520

  730

  1,020

  840

  270

  40

  4,980

  England

  16,040

  53,260

  41,160

  35,720

  50,030

  76,460

  63,960

  21,460

  3,050

  361,140

  Note: — less than five.

  Age details of part-time teachers have not been given because about 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the volume of statistics on teachers. [39220].

  Mr. Timms
  The 2001 volume of Teachers in England (including teachers pay for England and Wales) was published on Friday, 22 February 2002. A copy has been placed in the library. Further copies can be obtained from The Stationery Office (ISBN 0-11-271127-8) or online at http:/www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DBNOL/ v0319/index.html.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the expressions of interest in the establishment of new faith schools which have been received by her Department in(a) the last year and (b) the last three months. [38857]

  Mr. Timms
  Expressions of interest in the establishment of new faith schools which have been received by the Department are:

  (a) in the last year—

  10 Church of England, 12 Muslim, 3 Christian, 2 Jewish, 1 Greek Orthodox, 1 Russian Orthodox, 1 Hindu, 1 Sikh, 1 Quaker, 1 Cherubim and Seraphim, 1 New Testament Church

  (b) In the last three months—

  1 Muslim, 1 Christian, 1 Jewish, 1 Russian Orthodox, 1 Hindu, 1 Cherubim and Seraphim, 1 New Testament Church.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many visits she and ministers in her Department have made since 7 June 2001 to(a) comprehensive schools without specialist status, (b) comprehensive schools with specialist status, (c) grammar schools, (d) secondary modern or high schools in wholly selective LEA areas and (e) independent schools, broken down by each category and each minister. [38858]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following visits, on departmental businesses, have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Ministers in her Department since 7 June 2001.
  1554W
  The Secretary of State made two visits to comprehensive schools without specialist status and three visits to comprehensive schools with specialist status.

  The Minister of State for School Standards made 13 visits to comprehensive schools without specialist status, seven visits to schools with specialist status and one visit to an independent school.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Early Years and School Standards made one visit to a comprehensive school without specialist status and one visit to an independent school.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Adult Skills made one visit to a comprehensive school without specialist status.

  I have visited four comprehensive schools without specialist status and five comprehensive schools with specialist status.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children and Family Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service's Corporate Plan for 2002 to 2006. [40169]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) has published its Corporate Plan today. Copies of the Corporate Plan have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further copies of the Corporate Plan may be obtained from CAFCASS.

  Enforcement Performance
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps she is taking to improve enforcement performance and if she will make a statement. [40170]

  Mr Willis
  The Lord Chancellor has today announced challenging targets for Magistrates Courts Committees for 2002–03 for enforcement of financial and non-financial penalties, as follows:

  Enforcement of Financial Penalties

  An increase of five per cent on the 2000–01 national average payment rate, i.e rising from 63 per cent. to 68 per cent.
  1555W
  Enforcement of community penalty breach warrants 75 per cent. of adult bail and no-bail warrants executed or withdrawn within 28 days of issue, and 75 per cent. of youth bail and no-bail warrants executed or withdrawn within 14 days of issue.

  Magristrates Courts Committees will be given nearly £10 million extra from April 2002, ring-fenced for enforcement, to enable them to improve performance. We will expect the amount of fine money recovered to increase as a result of the extra funding and will monitor the position carefully to ensure that performance improves.

  We are already taking forward a programme of work to improve enforcement arising from the Department's Post Implementation Review of the Transfer of Warrant Execution project. The Post Implementation Review report will be published on the Department's website on 5 March. We shall be holding a series of conferences for enforcement practitioners in April. These will be followed by the establishment of a Criminal Enforcement Policy Advisory Group, which will be tasked with exploring and evaluating good practice initiatives, revising and updating guidance and taking forward other issues arising from the conferences to improve enforcement.

  Copies of the Post Implementation Review report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 5 March.

  Disease Control
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the proposed National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency will have(a) a role and (b) powers in respect of disease control in Scotland; [30687]

  (2) who will carry out the functions currently carried out in Scotland by the National Radiological Protection Board following the creation of the National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency. [30689].

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of today.

  Patients Forum
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will know what change in expenditure the creation of patients' forums will require, after taking account of funding for community health councils and PALs; and if he will make a statement. [35495]

  Mr. Blears
  [holding answer 12 February 2002,1: We are working to secure funding to maximise the new system of patient and public involvement, including the introduction of patient forums in every trust, as part of the Government spending review. Resourcing the new structures is a matter we are taking seriously and we expect to receive the outcome of this spending review in the summer 2002.

  Health Expenditure
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) over-the-counter health remedies bought by private individuals, (b) money spent on health by charities and (c) money spent on non-NHS nursing
  1556W
  homes are included in his Department's figures for total UK health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product in comparison to EU country figures. [39209]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 28 February 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking if (a) over the counter health remedies bought by private individuals, (b) money spent on health by charities and (c) money spent on non-NHS nursing homes are included in figures for total UK health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product in comparison to EU country figures. I am replying in his absence. (39209).
  Comparative figures for total health expenditure in EU countries are published by the OECD in "OECD Health Data 2001", UK figures for this dataset were provided in February 2001 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and do not incorporate improvements made in compilation methods since then. Deviations from the international definitions are fully documented within the dataset.
  On 12 February 2002, ONS published estimates of total UK health expenditure for 1997–2000. The methods for estimating some of the components of the total new and relatively untested, so the improved estimates are being released as experimental. ONS has provided the experimental estimates to OECD for inclusion in "OECD Health Data 2002", the release of which is planned for June 2002. These experimental estimates do include expenditure on over-the-counter remedies bought by private individuals, money spent on health by non-profit institutions serving households (mainly charities) and money spent on nursing care in non-NHS nursing homes.
  The improvements in methods used bring the total UK health expenditure estimates more into line with the international definition, promulgated by the OCED and supported by the World Health Organisation, the World Bank and the European Commission. Details of the methods have been published in Economic Trends No 579(February 2002) and on the National Statistics website.

  North Hampshire Hospital
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will deliver to the North Hampshire Hospital the additional funding for cardiac treatment which he pledged when he visited Basingstoke in May. [15175].

  Mr. Blears
  As pledged in the NHS Plan, investment in heart disease services will be increased by an extra £230 million a year by 2003/04. There will also be an additional £101 million in health authority baseline budgets this year plus extra funds allocated throughout the year. In addition, there will be an extra £120 million of capital funding from the HM Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund to expand capacity and modernise services.

  This year additional funding for North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust has been allocated as follows:

  £151,000 cardiac care equipment

  £101,000 rehabilitation services

  £101,000 cardiac management.

  Emergency Admissions (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each NHS trust in Lancashire, what was the(a) number and (b) percentage change in emergency admissions between April and October in (i) 2001 and (ii) 000. [15471]

  Ms Blears
  The latest available data for acute trusts are set out in the table:

  Finished first episodes

  April—August 2000

  April—August 2001 provisional

  Per cent. change

  Blackpool

  Victoria

  10,912

  11,330

  +3.8

  Blackburn

  10,327

  10,519

  + 1.9

  Burnley

  7,912

  7,995

  + 1.0

  Chorley

  4,149

  4,036

  - 2.7

  Morecambe

  Bay

  11,056

  11,811

  +6.8

  Preston

  8,955

  9,235

  +3.1

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Labelling
  Richard Younger-Rose
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with his European Union colleagues regarding strengthening restrictions on country of origin labelling. [12642]

  Yvette Cooper
  None.

  The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for representing the UK at working level on these matters, is pressing for changes to EU labelling rules to require country of origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat products. It is also pressing for changes that would prevent misleading labelling by restricting the use of terms like "produce of…" to those foods where the main ingredient come from, and production processes occur in, the named place or country.

  Health Authority Debt
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities were in debt in(a)1997 and (b) 2001; and what was the level of debt in each case. [16848]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information has been placed in the Library. Changes in the accounting and financial arrangements for health authorities mean that the figures for 1996–97 and 2000–01 are not directly comparable.

  Sussex Ambulance Service
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the response time is for the Sussex Ambulance Service in the last period for which figures are available; and what(a) the national average and (b) the Government's target response time is. [17347]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's target response times require that ambulance services prioritise emergency calls. Immediate life threatening calls are classified as Category A, and other emergency calls are classified as 1558W
  Category B/C. Ambulance services are required to respond to 75 per cent of Category A calls within eight minutes and 50 per cent of Category B/C calls within eight minutes. For rural services, which includes Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust, there should be a response to 95 per cent of emergency calls within 19 minutes, and for urban services within 14 minutes. For urgent patient journeys the ambulance should arrive not more than 15 minutes after the agreed time in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Information about the response times to emergency calls and other requests for transport for Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust and all other ambulance trusts are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy is in the Library and available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his most recent assessment is of acute hospital bed availability in(a) Worcestershire, (b) Gloucestershire, (c) Herefordshire, (d) Warwickshire and (e) Birmingham; and if he will make a statement. [23086]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of available acute beds at midnight on 29 November 2001 in National Health Service Trusts in the areas listed is given in the table:

  Available acute beds at midnight on 29 November 2001

  NHS Trust

  Total acute beds

  (a) Worcestershire

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  764

  Worcestershire Community & Mental Health NHS Trust

  101

  Gloucestershire

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  632

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  695

  Severn NHS Trust

  7

  (c) Herefordshire

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  303

  (d) Warwickshire

  George Elliot Hospital NHS Trust

  362

  North Warwickshire NHS Trust

  28

  South Warwickshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust

  30

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  391

  (e) Birmingham

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  194

  Birmingham Heartlands & Solihull NHS Trust

  1,168

  Birmingham Specialist Community Health NHS Trust

  6

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust

  92

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  653

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  471

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  38

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  1,042

  Source: DoH winter bed census.

  The number of acute beds in the table includes adult and children's acute beds, critical care beds, specialist beds, special care baby cots, beds in assessment and admission units and beds in observation wards (if

  1559W
  available to admit patients to). Some categories of acute beds—such as obstetrics and day care beds-are not included in the Department of Health winter bed census figures quoted but have formerly been included in calculations of acute capacity.

  Elective Surgery, Buckingham
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up a dedicated fast-track elective surgery centre in the constituency of Buckingham. [23720]

  Ms Blears
  We announced plans for 26 diagnostic and treatment centres (DTCs) in February 2001. Among these was a proposal for a centre in Milton Keynes.

  We are now looking at ways to extend the DTC programme, including in the south-east and, if possible, to bring it forward. We will consider suitable proposals that stand to benefit even more patients.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued in respect of non-executive appointments to(a) primary care trusts and (b) other NHS bodies; and what role primary care trust chairmen have in selecting non-executive members of (i) primary care trusts and (ii) other NHS bodies. [27129]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State determines the criteria according to which all non-executive appointments to National Health Service boards are made. He also determines equal opportunities goals and objectives to ensure that boards are representative of the communities they serve. These provisions apart, the appointment of chairs and non-executives to the boards of NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities is now the responsibility of the NHS Appointments Commission. Guidance on the appointments process was issued by the Commission in October 2001. A copy is in the Library. The guidance provides that the chair of the NHS body involved should serve on (but not chair) the sift and interview panels for non-executive board members. However, the final decision on all appointments is taken by the Appointments Commission.

  Children Act
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which date the extension of section 87 of the Children Act 1989 to include all boarding schools came into force. [27357]

  Jacqui Smith
  The extension of section 87 (87A) of the Children Act 1989 was in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, section 38 (87B) was substituted for (87A) in the Education Act 1996.

  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act received Royal Asset on 3 November 1994. Guidance to local authorities on the affect of the amendment in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act was issued in January 1995 LAC (95)1.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [30182]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, at column 707W.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether bed blocking at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital by clients of Birmingham City Council's Social Services Department is delaying operations for Solihull patients. [30208]

  Yvette Cooper
  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust has been affected by the well-publicised problems with delayed discharges across the whole of Birmingham for most of last year. I am advised that following the allocation of additional "Cash for Change" funding in November, there has been an improvement. However, there remain approximately 100 patients who are experiencing delayed transfers of care in the trust. Of these, nine are awaiting social services funding compared with 73 in October 2001, while 31 are awaiting completion of assessments by the Social Services Departments. The Director of Social Services is currently pursuing ways to improve this position.

  I am informed that both the Trust and Solihull Health Authority are ahead of their waiting list profiles and have robust plans to ensure that their end of year targets are achieved. In addition, elective and day case admissions have been at a consistent level, and until early in the New Year the number of cancellations of surgery being experienced by the Trust were below their average levels. There was a temporary increase in the number of cancelled operations for two weeks in January due to a viral outbreak affecting both patients and staff, but this has now returned to normal levels.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason old age psychiatry beds are not included in the figures on bed blocking collected by the NHS. [36918]

  Jacqui Smith
  Delayed discharges are collected as an indicator of how well the whole system is working. A number of smaller specialities, including old age psychiatry, are not included, because they have a smaller impact on the overall capacity of the NHS, since the beds involved would not be suitable for most emergency admissions or post-operative care. However, patients in old-age psychiatry beds should be able to receive the right care at the right time, like all other patients. That is why standard 7 of the National Service Framework for Older People sets out to achieve integrated mental health services provided by the NHS and councils to ensure effective diagnosis, treatment and support.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many old age psychiatry beds, and what percentage of the total, were blocked by patients waiting to enter a care home(a) in the UK and (b) in North Yorkshire, in (i) 1997, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2002. [36915]
  1561W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Medway Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has drawn up a shortlist of candidates to fill the post of Chair of Medway Primary Care Trust; when he expects to conduct interviews; and what the expected date of appointment is. [30948]

  Ms Blears
  The closing date for applications for the post of chair of Medway Primary Care Trust is 15 March. No interview dates have yet been set. However, the National Health Service Appointments Commission anticipate that a decision on the appointment will be made before the end of March.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training of(a) doctors and (b) nurses for emergency procedures the private sector undertakes; and what help the NHS is able to provide in this regard. [31127]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]. Information on private sector training of doctors and nurses for emergency procedures is not collected by the National Health Service or the Department of Health. However, the vast majority of doctors and nurses working in the private sector will have been trained in the NHS, where, if the training was undertaken in England, it would include emergency procedures.

  Although the independent sector make no direct financial contribution to nurse training, they do provide clinical placements. The availability of quality clinical placements generally is a significant factor in the NHS's capacity to train newly qualified staff. NHS employer-led work force planning takes account of the needs of the independent sector as well as the NHS so that training output is, resources and capacity permitting, aligned to the overall demands of the pool.

  When the National Standards Commission takes over the regulation of the private health care sector on 1 April, all providers will have to meet core national minimum standards. This will include a requirement to have on duty at all times a member of staff trained in resuscitation, who has updated training annually. In addition, providers have to meet standards specific to the services they provide. For private hospitals, this includes more detailed and stringent standards covering Advanced Life Support and resuscitation equipment, and the requirement that if the hospital does not have intensive care facilities, it must have an arrangement with another hospital in the vicinity. Whether it is NHS or private, it should have such facilities, for patients to be transferred there in an emergency.

  Shropshire Health Authority
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people, expressed as equivalent full-time posts, are employed by Shropshire Health Authority. [34804].
  1562W
  Yvette Cooper
  Shropshire Health Authority currently employs 167 staff. This includes those staff contracted to the Health Authority who are currently working within Primary Care Groups.

  Primary Care Trusts (Chairmen)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who draws up the criteria used by the Independent Appointments Commission to appoint the chairmen of primary care trusts; [34483]

  (2) what independent references are sought before appointing the chairmen of primary care trusts; [34485]

  (3) what independent assessment is made of the accuracy of biographical details supplied by candidates for the chairmanship of primary care trusts. [34486]

  Ms Blears
  The criteria for all appointments to National Health Service Boards are determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Two references are sought from all new candidates for appointment and are taken up before an appointment is made. Where candidates are serving NHS board members new references are not sought, but interview panels take into account an appraisal of each candidate's performance in post. No independent assessment is made of the accuracy of curricula vitae provided by candidates. However, all candidates are required to sign a declaration acknowledging the fact that if they are appointed and the information they have provided is subsequently found to be untrue, then their tenure of office may be terminated.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will draw up a timetable for implementation of the recommendation of the CFS/ME Working Group regarding training. [35054]

  Yvette Cooper
  Responsibility for the content, standards, management and delivery of medical education is shared between regulatory bodies, for example the General Medical Council and the Specialist Training Authority, professional bodies, notably the medical Royal Colleges, universities, the Department of Health and the National Health Service. We expect that these bodies will take account of the latest developments in medicine when developing their syllabuses.

  General practitioners are expected to keep their professional skills up-to-date, and learning will always continue even if formal training has ceased.

  Working Conditions and Practice
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [35888]

  Ms Blears
  The Department carried out an assessment of the implications of the Working Time Regulations in 1998 and issued advice and guidance to both individual members of staff and line managers. This guidance is regularly reviewed and is readily available to all staff.
  1563W
  Under the Regulations only staff who have voluntarily signed a waiver to the limit on the maximum average length of the working week may work more than an average of 48 hours per week.

  There are currently 39 such waivers signed by staff in the Department. This represents less than three-quarters of one per cent. of the total number of staff employed by the Department as at 31 December 2001.

  We are determined to improve the work/life balance of staff throughout the Department and measures are in place to address instances of long hours working. We remain committed to reducing the number of employees who are required to work in excess of 48 hours per week to an absolute minimum commensurate with meeting the Department's operational needs, and this is kept under regular review.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 3 July 2001 concerning Mrs. James of Rousden Road, Chelston, Torquay. [27599]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 22 January 2002.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a substantive reply will be given to Julie Hasting's letter of 26 November 2001, concerning the Royal Commission on Long-term Care. [36841]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 21 February.

  EU Health Card
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publicise the introduction of the EU-wide health card; and if he will make a statement. [37492]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council of Ministers, entitled "Action Plan for skills and mobility" (Document COM(2002)72—copy available in the Library), the Commission announced its intention to present a proposal early in 2003 for the introduction of an European Union-wide health card. We will look at this proposal constructively when received.

  Form E111
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the eligibility of the self-employed is to use (Form E111) for treatment abroad. [38458]

  Mr. Hutton
  Any European Economic Area national resident in the United Kingdom, whether self-employed or not, is entitled to use form El11 for treatment covered by that form in other EEA member states during temporary visits. The only exceptions are workers posted to this country, and resident here, but who remain insured in another EEA member state.

  Ambulance Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidelines have been issued by his Department to ambulance trusts about protecting the confidentiality of patients involved in accidents or emergencies. [38700]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance on confidentiality, "The Protection and Use of Patient Information", was issued to the National Health Service in March 1996 under cover of Health Service Guidance 96/18. This guidance is applicable to all NHS organisations and covers a wide range of circumstances, including accidents and emergencies.

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether figures recording the number of cancelled operations include(a) those operations cancelled before the day of admission and (b) the individual cancellations of patients who have their operation cancelled on multiple occasions. [38684]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures are collected on a quarterly basis on the number of patients whose operations are cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on the day patients are due to arrive, or after arrival in hospital, or on the day of their operation. These figures are not broken down to show whether a patient has been cancelled by the hospital more than once.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years, [38744]

  (2) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department (a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years [38745]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will provide details of the consignments of beef imported into the UK that have been found to have contravened EU BSE regulations in the last two years. (201)

  Ms Blears
  A European Union Decision on BSE, effective from 1 October 2000, introduced, among other things, a requirement that all Specified Risk Material (SRM) be removed at the slaughterhouse and disposed of in a safe manner. The importation of meat with SRM attached had been illegal under United Kingdom domestic legislation for several years previously.

  Since the EU rules came into effect, there have been 22 instances where consignments of carcase beef imported into the UK from other EU member states have been found with SRM (portions of spinal cord)

  1565W
  attached. There has also been one instance where ovine SRM has been found in a half ewe carcase. In each case, the Food Standards Agency has taken up the matter vigorously with the authorities of the member state concerned, and reported the discovery to the European Commission. The 23 instances (22 bovine and 1 ovine)

  Finds of Specified Risk Material in Imported Meat

  Date of discovery

  Place of discovery

  Finding/action taken by MHS

  Source

  (1) 17 January 2001

  ABP, Newry, County Down

  Spinal cord in two of a consignment of 221 forequarters

  Loblein Teterower Fleisch GmbH Landkreis Gustrow, Germany

  (2) 17 January 2001

  ABP, Newry, County Down

  Spinal cord in one of a consignment of 192 forequarters

  Westfleisch Lubbeck, Germany

  (3) 29 January 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord in one of a consignment of 216 hindquarters.

  Oldenburg, Germany

  (4) 1 February 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord in one of a consignment of 217 hindquarters.

  Fleisch-Versand Heinz Gausepohl Bakum, Germany

  (5) 2 February 2001

  Northern Ireland

  Remnants of spinal cord in two of a consignment of 230 fore and hindquarters.

  Liffey Meats, Ballyjamesduff, Co. Cavan, Republic of Ireland

  Operation of plant suspended indefinitely on 8 February.

  (6) 1 March 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Several pieces of spinal cord in five of a consignment of 216 fore and hinquarters.

  Fleischverkaufsstelk Kalkar, Germany

  Operation of plant suspended on 8 March.

  (7) 1 March 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Several pieces of spinal cord in seven of a consignment of 188 quarters.

  Brada's Vleeschbedrijf BV, Leevwarden, Netherlands

  Operation of plant suspended 6-9 March.

  (8) 2 March 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Several pieces of spinal cord in four forequarters of a consignment of 222 hind and forequarters.

  Mueller Fleisch GmbH, Birkenfeld, Germany

  Operation of plant suspended on 8 March.

  (9) 5 March 2001

  Blackpool Abattoir, Blackpool, Lanes.

  8 cm piece of spinal cord in one forequarter out of a consignment of 53 whole carcases.

  Brada's Vleeschbedrijf BV, Leevwarden, Netherlands

  Operation of plant suspended 6–9 March.

  (10) 7 March 2001

  Matheson Jess Ltd., Dundee, Scotland

  Spinal cord in two forequarters of a consignment of 158 heifer carcases.

  Giresa Palencia, Spain

  (11) 9 March 2001

  Great Harwood Food Products, Blackburn

  Spinal cord in two of a consignment of 268 forequarters.

  Fribin S.A.T. Binepar, Spain

  (12) 20 March 2001

  Great Harwood Food Products, Blackburn

  Unexposed spinal cord in cervical vertebral canal in 41, out of a consignment of 204 forequarters.

  Industria Carni SNC Carema (Torino) Italy

  Operation of plant suspended 22–29 March.

  (13) 21 March 2001

  Dungannon Meats, Larne, Northern Ireland

  Spinal cord found in one forequarter in a consignment of 220 quarters.

  Kildare Chilling, Kildare, Republic of Ireland

  (14) 30 March 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in two forequarters in a consignment of 203.

  Fleischzentrum Wilhelmshaven, Germany

  Slaughter of cattle temporarily prohibited at plant on 30 March.

  (15) 30 April 2001

  St. Merryn Meats (Victoria), Cornwall

  Spinal cord found in two forequarters in a consignment of 158

  Danish Crown, The Skive, Branipsgade 6, 7800 Skive, Denmark

  Plant orderd to re-inspect all cuts of meat for spinal cord. Plant to introduce own checks and demonstrate their efficiency to Danish Food & Veterinary Adminstration.

  1566W
  involved 21 different meat plants from seven member states. It is the responsibility of the relevant national authorities to ensure that meat plants in their territory comply with the EU rules. Eight of the plants have had their operating licences suspended as a result.

  Details of the 23 instances are set out in the table:
  1567W

  Finds of Specified Risk Material in Imported Meat

  Date of discovery

  Place of discovery

  Finding/action taken by MHS

  Source

  (16) 25 June 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in two forequarters in a consignment of 230.

  Gausepohl Fleisch GmbH, Bakum

  Operation of plant suspended on 26 June until 2 July when all the conditions laid down by German authorities had been complied with

  (17) 2 August 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in one quarter in a consignment of 240.

  Fair Oaks Clonmel Limited, Upper Irishtown, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary, Ireland

  (18) 7 August 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in one quarter in a consignment of 200.

  Domburg Vlees bv OUD, Bodegraafseweg 43, 2411 HT Bodegraven, The Netherlands

  (19) 21 August 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in four quarters in a consignment of 236.

  Expsl. J. Gosschalk en Zoon BV Oenerweg 2–4 8161 PM Epe, The Netherlands

  (20) 24 October 2001

  Cumberland Meat Packers Ltd, Coventry

  Spinal cord found in one quarter in a consignment of 240.

  Kroot Vlees BV Enschotsestraat 28 5013 BD Tilburg The Netherlands NL 008141885BO1

  (21) 9 November 2001

  Najib & Sons, Foston, Derbyshire

  Spinal cord found in one half ewe carcase in a consignment of 127.

  Awaiting details EEC 522

  (22) 15 November 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in two quarters in a consignment of 44.

  NV EEG Slacthuis Verbist Gentse Heerweg 78 B-8870 Izegem, Belgium

  (23) 29 November 2001

  Anglo Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex

  Spinal cord found in five quarters in a consignment of 196.

  Vleesgroothandel NV Dierickx Baaikensstraat 12, 9240 Zele, Belgium

  1568W

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

"Strong Pound"
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of recent and current exchange rates, they will discourage Ministers from using the expression "strong pound".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not comment on day-to-day movements in foreign exchange markets. 'The Government's objective for the exchange rate remains a stable and competitive pound in the medium term.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, on the other hand, the Government often use the expression "strong pound"—which is what the Question is about. Surely it must always be wrong to describe the pound as strong: since the euro's launch, it has fallen by about 15 per cent against the US dollar—in which, contrary to what the Minister told noble Lords on Tuesday 60 per cent of our foreign trade is transacted. Is not the problem that those who were euphoric at the birth of the euro simply cannot bring themselves to describe it as weak, and that, therefore, the poor old pound must take the blame? Furthermore, is not "weak euro" the only truthful expression, given that it has gone down like a stone against every major currency on the planet?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have done an extensive literature search, but I have found only three recent references by Ministers to a "strong pound". In all those cases, the reference was not to the dollar but to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has rightly described as a "weak euro". Moreover, in all those cases, the suggestion was not that a "strong pound", in those terms, is a good thing or a bad thing. As for the euro's share in our overseas transactions, it comprises 65 per cent of the Bank of England sterling exchange rate index, whereas the US dollar comprises only 16.5 per cent of the index.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is completely irrelevant whether it is a "strong pound" or a "weak euro", but completely relevant—as noble Lords discussed earlier—whether our exchange rate is stable and competitive? Does he also agree that the best route to making the pound stable and competitive is for the Government to announce now that they plan to join the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, takes us hack to the Question
1528
asked on Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He may also have noticed that I gave exactly the same answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I shall also give him the same answer as I gave him last time. It was right then and it is right now.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any indication of how far he thinks the pound would fall if the Government were foolish enough to announce that we shall join the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no; we do not comment on day-to-day movements in the pound.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, regardless of whether the sterling exchange rate is strong or weak, the current exchange rate combined with the Government's policies is doing immense damage to British manufacturing industry, and thousands of jobs have been lost as a result of those policies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no exchange rate is right for all purposes. It is true that manufacturing industry finds difficulty in the pound's current exchange rate—not only against the euro but against other currencies as well—which is why we have taken so many measures to help manufacturing industry, notably in corporation tax levels and specific help for research and development. Nevertheless, what is bad and undoubtedly difficult for manufacturing industry is not bad for, for example, service industry, which is doing very well with current exchange rates.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we need to have long memories in these matters? Is it not only a couple of years ago that manufacturing industry was screaming that the pound's exchange rate value was too low and that we were suffering dreadfully from overseas competition? Can one ever get it right?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, such pressure is always put on governments, but particularly in the run up to a Budget. We are currently in such a period, and we are hearing those pressures from manufacturing industry and the business sector generally. It is important that people should express their views to the Chancellor. However, those views should be expressed in the context of the fact that we have the lowest unemployment level in 30 years and our economy has the highest investment level in many years.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, if we start having pay increases of 9.5 per cent over a 12-month period in organisations in which the state has the sole shareholding, is there not a significant risk that we shall no longer have a strong pound?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord is referring to particular wage increases. However, the general position is that wage increase levels are currently very low.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while recognising that the Question was intended to attack the euro's exchange level, does my noble friend agree that inflation and interest rate levels are much more important to our economic stability than the value of the pound?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, it is correct to say that exchange rates are very seldom the prime move':; much more often they are the result of other economic indicators. My noble friend is right to say that the strength of our economy compared with those of other G7 members, our employment and investment levels, which I have described, and the improved productivity we have achieved are fundamentally important factors.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the business community that devaluation of sterling, in its exchange rate against the euro, is a precondition of joining the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I challenge the view that there is any settled view of the business community as such. There are those in the business community who support Britain in Europe, those who support sterling and those who support Britain out of Europe. There is no fixed or universal view in the business community. On the whole, however, the business community is very sympathetic to British membership of European monetary union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister mlise that, when he uses the Bank of England's trade-weighted index as the basis to mislead the House on the balance between our trade in euros and in dollars, that index is entirely irrelevant for his purpose? Would the Government be good enough to consider the Customs and Excise figures, which confirm the figures that I have given, rather than the figures that he gave to the House on Tuesday and again today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not take very kindly to the word "mislead". If the noble Lord wants the figures on trade shares, they are as follows: 50 per cent of our trade is with the euro zone; 16.5 per cent with the United States; and 18.5 per cent with NAFTA—which is, I know, what the noble Lord would like us to join.

Sustainable Development: World Summit
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What issues they raised at the PrepCom session in New York earlier this month which was called to discuss the agenda for the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in September 2002 in Johannesburg.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government's view is that the Johannesburg Summit should focus on action to make globalisation work for sustainable development, especially for the poorest. Our priorities for the summit were well reflected in the comments made at the recent PrepCom by the European Union, speaking through the Spanish presidency. These priorities are: poverty eradication and sustainable livelihoods, emphasising capacity building and education; the opportunities presented by resource productivity, including the application of science and technology; energy; freshwater and oceans; and sustainable development initiatives for Africa.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree, though, that there is a huge challenge for the Government, the EU and the world summit in that the earth summit builds on the good principles established at Rio, of which the Minister has outlined some, but these principles, including the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle—which I believe the Government have signed up to; at least according to their website for the earth summit—are often ignored, challenged or ruled out of order by the World Trade Organisation? What are the Government doing to try to bring into a focused aim the two parallel universes that are dwelt in by these different organisations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree that they are parallel universes. There is a clear overlap between the objectives that will be pursued in Johannesburg and the Doha process which was regarded as a development round. It is important to recognise that the sustainable development summit will deal not only with the kind of environmental issues to which the noble Baroness referred, which were dealt with in Rio and followed up in Kyoto, but also with sustainability on an economic and a social basis. Therefore, there is a wider agenda which is, given certain conditions, fully compatible with the WTO process.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, will the Minister help to ensure—some groups have pressed for this—that the agenda of the summit enables serious consideration to be given to the subject of reproductive health? Does he accept that the subject of sustainability provides a genuine context in which to try to meet a declared target; that is, the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services for all individuals of appropriate age as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015? Does he also accept that that is in the context of a generally accepted figure of about 350 million couples world-wide who would be prepared, or would like, to use contraceptive services but do not have access to them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as the agenda is concerned, I have indicated the broad range of items which the EU has suggested to the various preparation committees should comprise the agenda for the summit. Reproductive health is not one of those

1531
priorities. I recognise the importance of the noble Viscount's comments. He will know that some developments have taken place on this issue. There have been more such developments in the OECD area than in the UN area. The agenda is not yet closed and there is not a single input into it. However, at the moment reproductive health is not one of the items we are pursuing although the noble Viscount may have noticed that a separate section in the chair's report from the latest PrepCom meeting deals with health in general.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, we on these Benches are glad that the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to be present at the summit in Johannesburg. However, does the Minister appreciate that the way to realise the eminently worthy ideals expressed at the PrepCom session, with which no one could possibly disagree, is to concentrate upon what can be done locally so that efforts in sustainable development are led by individuals and local communities? Is the Minister aware of what is already being done by Churches and local groups under the Agenda 21 umbrella to transform environmental awareness and introduce good practice? Will he do what he can to ensure that the summit meeting does not simply deal with abstraction but enables the sharing of stories of good local practice round the world which can be so inspiring for individuals and groups who are trying to do their bit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly share the right reverend Prelate's view that this matter will not become a reality unless we build from the bottom up and make sure that local groups, local initiatives, local business and local public authorities take on board the sustainability messages. That is an important dimension of what we see as the priorities for Johannesburg. For that to work properly a framework needs to be established by the heads of government. I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's recognition of the role that the Prime Minister has played here. He was the first head of government to indicate that he would attend the summit.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, as part of the Government's sustainable development policy, and following a change of direction of the Bush Administration in the United States with regard to new power sources, what are the Government doing to support research into fuel cell technology? Are they currently co-operating with the Americans in that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have long supported alternative transport fuels in a number of research and economic studies. Of course, major research is being carried out across the world by motor companies and others into the issue of fuel cell technology. The Government believe that that could provide a carbon-free future for a large proportion of transport. If I may say so, in my previous capacity I very much encouraged the Government to move down that road. That is the Government's position.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an element of incompatibility between the priorities that the European Union has announced for the G8 Summit and its own aid programme? What measures are the Government taking to persuade the European Union to realign its aid programme so that it fits in particular with the objective of poverty eradication by diverting aid from richer countries in the third world to the poorest?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as is well known to the House, the Government have some reservations about the balance of the EU aid programme and, indeed, the efficiency of its delivery. I and my colleagues both in this House and in another place have emphasised that over time. I refer in particular to the dimension of focusing on building capacity and initiatives at the local level. Therefore, I largely agree with what the noble Lord said.

Railtrack
3.16 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government
How much they estimate they will have to spend, apart from track access charges, in order to get Railtrack out of administration.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that will depend on the length of the administration. However, the Government made a short-term commercial loan facility of £2.1 billion available to the administrator to pay Railtrack's creditors and keep the rail network running to the end of March.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is a fact that since privatisation the cost of rolling stock has actually fallen in real teens. However, the cost of work on the track and signalling has multiplied two to three times. Is that due to inefficiencies in Railtrack, overhearing safety considerations, performance regimes or some other matter because it certainly does not manifest itself in the returns to the contractors who actually carry out the work?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be most interested to see the evidence on that matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refers. I refer to the range of reasons that he gave and to the matter of equally competitive supply markets. However, I suspect that the issue on which he focuses is the quality and skill of procurement on the part of the train operating companies by comparison with Railtrack. Be that as it may, I shall be pleased to investigate the matter further if he will give me the details.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend help a little more as regards the time-scale of Railtrack's administration? Does he agree that the first stage is for the administrator to set up an information room so

1533
that bidders can see the quality and state of the assets? Will he confirm that that is supposed to be done by the end of March, or will he give an alternative date?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the creation of a data room so that potential proposers are well aware of all the liabilities and assets against which they would submit bids in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State at the end of October, shortly after the administration order was issued. That is a substantial piece of work. I am told that the administrator will be working to the end of March, or thereabouts, thus enabling invitations for bids to be issued in April, with a potential submission date some time in July.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, how does the Minister interpret the words "will have to spend" in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? Does he interpret that phrase to mean "need to spend" or "to have available to spend"? There is a bit of a difference between the two.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, given where the costs will eventually fall, that is probably a sophisticated but academic question.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, bear me out! In respect of the loan facility, there is a further technical complication about state-aid funding, with which I shall not bore the House. That will effectively mean that Railtrack, underwritten by a government guarantee, will be able to replace the funding that it has from the Government in the short term with commercial funds. That will eventually be a charge against the assets of the company, as one would expect. Likewise, the costs of the administrator will again eventually be a charge against the company at the eventual settlement and, I hope, when it moves out of administration.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in view of that reply, I ask the Minister to advise the House whether there have been any requests to the Government so far to guarantee or underwrite the finances of a proposed company limited by guarantee for Railtrack. Can he say in principle whether the Government would be agreeable to such an approach and, if so, will there be any limitation to the support that they would be likely to give?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, this is one of the situations in which I can say with honesty, "Not to my knowledge". As noble Lords well know, the Government regard a company limited by guarantee as being one possible way forward. It will ensure that when the rail administrator invites bids, there will be at least one bid on the table which is clearly in the public interest. The SRA is supporting the development of such a proposal. Clearly, that is at arm's length from the final decision that will be made by the
1534
administrator, who will put a proposal about what he believes is the best way forward to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, on the question of Railtrack making information available, is the Minister certain that Railtrack can provide an accurate list of the size and value of its assets?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I would be mad to say that I was confident, on the basis of the knowledge that I have, that due diligence would be perfectly fulfilled in the circumstances of which we are aware. The administrator has a particularly challenging job in that respect. One reason—not the sole reason—why Railtrack went into administration was because it was not aware of the scope and extent of its assets or liabilities. The fact that that happened after a period during which it was a company is astounding. The second reason, as noble Lords know, involves the unbelievable cost overrun on the West Coast Main Line. I am certain that the administrator is doing his best to fulfil his responsibilities to the court to ensure that bidders have a full and fair picture, so that we do not have a repetition of the complete mess that we have seen previously in relation to Railtrack.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Railtrack is having to continue to advertise for new staff? Is he satisfied that, despite the uncertainties of the period of administration, it is able to recruit people of adequate skill and calibre in engineering and administration?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am certain that Railtrack is having to advertise for new staff—it is a substantial business and it is continuing to operate. That was the purpose of having an administration order rather than a winding up order. I do not know in detail whether it is having any difficulty recruiting staff. However, most people believe that, given the Government's commitment to establishing a strong railway industry in this country and to remarkable levels of capital investment over the next 10 years, many able people in the public and private sectors will be keen to join the rail industry. We saw that in relation to the success of the recent Chiltern bid and extension of that franchise.

Special Advisers
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What codes of conduct apply to special advisers and to whom special advisers are held accountable.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the Civil Service Code, with the exception of the provisions of impartiality and objectivity, apply to special advisers. The Guidance on the Work of the

1535
Government's Information Service also applies to special advisers when dealing with media-related activities. Special advisers are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that some of the comments in another place suggesting that there is a contradiction between efficient government and honest government were very unfortunate? Does he recognise that the Northcote-Trevelyan principles of independence and impartiality have been a crucial element in establishing the reputation of British governments for honesty?
Secondly, does the Minister agree that while special advisers often do an excellent job, the network of special advisers associated with the Policy Unit of No. 10 are seen, at least in some quarters, to be rather more powerful than elected Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers to whom they offer advice?
Finally, in order to close the circle of accountability—accountability through Ministers to Parliament, which the Minister mentioned, is pretty distant—would the Minister consider the possibility of Parliament being consulted on a ceiling on the number of special advisers and of Parliament having to approve the appointment of any special adviser who has the executive power to give orders to civil servants?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I readily agree with the implication that the British Civil Service is the best in the world. We all have a shared pride in its integrity, propriety and, indeed, impartiality. As to the suggestion that there are special advisers who are more powerful than Ministers or Secretaries of State, that has not been my experience in government.
As to the other questions that the noble Baroness raised, we have promised that we shall bring in a Civil Service Bill. That will be preceded by full consultation. Those issues would best be dealt with at that point.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Select Committee on Public Administration in the other place has tried repeatedly to get special advisers to appear before it but its requests have been consistently refused? Will the Minister lift that unwarranted barrier on their coming before the committee to give evidence about what they do?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and, as I have said, special advisers are responsible to Ministers. It is for Ministers to judge who should appear. That includes permanent as well as temporary civil servants, such as special advisers. We have a very thorough system of accountability. The most accountable Minister of all is the Prime Minister, who answers questions every week in Parliament. The present situation and the Government's present practice are well justified.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, since two special advisers were transformed into civil servants four
1536
years ago—that is, the chief of staff and the head of communications at No. 10 Downing Street—according to government spokesmen in this House at the time, have any more special advisers undergone that transformation to the Civil Service?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords. to repeat, all special advisers are temporary civil servants. The noble Lord refers, I am sure, to Article 3(3) of the Civil Service Order in Council of 1997, which provided scope for the government to appoint three special advisers, who would have the power to direct other civil servants. Only two have been appointed, as the noble Lord said—the director of communications and strategy and the Prime Minister's chief of staff.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should keep a sense of proportion about recent events and recognise that under this Government, as under the previous government, civil servants and special advisers rub along together most of the time tolerably well? Does he further agree that no codes of conduct, however well drawn up, will work if there are individuals who are determined to prove themselves the spin doctors from hell?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords. I agree with the general thrust of that question. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who has great experience in these matters, say the other day in this House that no Act can prescribe for personal relationships. The noble Viscount. Lord Astor, referred to that as office politics. I have no doubt that for the people involved that is a very serious matter.
However, all governments have certainly suffered from these problems in the past. I was looking at evidence that the then Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, gave in 1996 when he complained about leaks. He said that from 1980 430 leaks were reported—about one every fortnight—which were worthy of investigation. He concluded—as I am sure would the party opposite—that any leaks are to be deplored.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there was nothing novel in 1997 about two special advisers in No. 10 Downing Street giving directions to civil servants? That has happened in the press office and in the Policy Unit of No. 10 many times in the past. What was novel was that proper provision was made for it under the Civil Service Order in Council.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. It emphasises the comment made by the Public Administration Select Committee, which praised the Government for their commendable progress on special advisers. For the first time we have a specific code of conduct and, as the Select Committee said, for the first time we have transparency, which did not exist under previous administrations.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
Whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the operation of the EU growth and stability pact.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have said consistently that we support a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact, taking into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it not regrettable that an important White Paper was published this morning and not made the subject of a Statement in both Houses of Parliament? In view of that, will the Minister ensure that an early debate on the White Paper takes place in your Lordships' House?
Are we not witnessing, in the words of the Chancellor this morning, a crude attempt by the Government to rewrite the EU's convergence programme and the rules of the EU growth and stability pact by including or omitting figures to suit themselves? Is that not because the Chancellor can see from today's published zero growth figures for the UK economy that the public finances are heading into a massive deficit, even more horrendous than the £54 billion of borrowing already planned over the next four years?
There are EU rules. The Government are in breach of them. What is their solution? It is to change the rules. Is that not what the Chancellor's words this morning really meant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I resist the suggestion that the Chancellor behaved in any way improperly or discourteously towards the House of Commons. He went out of his way to ensure that he was able to unveil the White Paper personally to the House of Commons. He agreed to the Speaker's request that he should defer answering the first Question until the end of Treasury Questions in order that there should be sufficient time for him to make a Statement on the White Paper and for there to be debate on it. Of course, the White Paper has been available in the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office since 11.30 a.m. today.
I also resist the suggestion that there is any way in which this country is in conflict with the stability and growth pact. We are in conformity not only with our own fiscal rules but also well within the criteria of the stability and growth pact. When the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, refers to zero growth, he is referring to this morning's headlines, which relate only to the fourth quarter of last year. Growth in the whole of last year was of course within the margins which we set for ourselves and which we expected both in the Budget last year and in the Pre-Budget Report. As the noble
1538
Lord knows, this country has been outstandingly successful in resisting the dangers of volatility in global economies.
Lord Peston: My Lords, although one has had only a couple of hours in which to examine this document, is my noble friend aware that it is a remarkably interesting and important document? It raises almost every important question confronting our country in the economic sphere and the European Union. I am genuinely surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, takes such an acid view of the document. It does not hide anything. Quite the contrary; it exposes almost everything that needs to be exposed.
None the less, is my noble friend aware that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on one matter; namely, that this document is so important—I am not sure what my noble friend the Chief Whip is about to say—that, instead of wasting a whole day on the trivial matter of foxhunting, if your Lordships' House is to have any future, and in my black moods I sometimes wonder whether it has, we should give a debate on this subject absolutely top priority? I hope that my noble friend will speak to my noble friend the Chief Whip on the matter and press him on it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston rightly reminds me that 1 did not respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about a future debate. Of course, as the House knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. Personally, I should be very happy to have a debate on this subject.
My noble friend is entirely right about the content of the White Paper. It was promised in the Chancellor's speech to the CBI in November last year. It addresses the reforms which are necessary in Europe in our labour, capital and product markets in order to increase competition and modernise the European economy. Those are matters of the most profound importance and they will be of great importance at the Barcelona Summit meeting and beyond. They were foreshadowed in the Lisbon Summit.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I support both noble Lords who have already spoken in pressing for time to be given to a debate on this subject. I hope very much that the Minister will speak to his noble colleagues in the usual channels, just as I shall speak to mine, in order to press that case.
Does the noble Lord agree that if we are to have growth and stability in Europe, the level of the currency and whether we are to join the euro, which we debated earlier, will be only one factor in determining whether growth and stability come about? This White Paper, whether or not one agrees with everything in it, deals with the other factors which will be crucially important; that is, the way the labour markets work, the way the capital markets work, and, indeed, Europe's place within the world. Therefore, given the

1539
importance of all those issues within the context of the development of the EU, I return to my first point: we should have more time in which to discuss the matter.
Lord 'McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated my personal sympathy with that view. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord will express the same view to his own Chief Whip. I do so now.
Of course, these issues are of far greater significance in terms of what we can do about them than the matter which we debated in Starred Questions on Tuesday and today. That brings us back to the very important debate which we must continue to have on whether we comply with the five economic tests which the Chancellor has set.

Business of the House: Hunting Debate
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that it has been agreed in the usual channels that this House will have a full day's debate on hunting on Tuesday, 19th March. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that my right honourable friend the President of the Council has today announced in the other place that a similar debate will take place in that House on the previous day, Monday, 18th March.
The debate in your Lordships' House will take place on a Motion which will be both amendable and divisible. I am advised that some careful thought will have to be given to the exact wording of the Motion, and the House authorities are currently considering that question. Therefore, at this stage I cannot tell your Lordships exactly what the wording will be. However, I can tell your Lordships that it is our intention to let the I-louse consider the matter fully and to vote on more than one option.
The speakers' list is now open in the Government Whips' Office. I have suggested to the usual channels that we sit at 11 a.m. that day to ensure that the votes take place at a reasonable hour. The usual channels are currently considering that proposal, but I thought that I should let your Lordships know that we were considering an early start that day.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for telling the House, in a little more detail, what most noble Lords read in the newspapers this morning or heard on the television news yesterday evening. It is good of him. However, he has not given us all the details that we need, but perhaps he or the Chief Whip plan to tell us more in due course.
The whole House knows that I have great admiration for the noble and learned Lord, but today that admiration is tempered with sympathy. We know exactly what has been going on. The Government are in some trouble: Mr Byers, Jo Moore, Sixsmith, Mittal, dodgy donations and so on. The cry goes out from No. 10 that something new and controversial must he found and, hey presto, it is hunting once more.
1540
There will be a free vote on this subject and some noble Lords on the Benches opposite find that puzzling. No doubt it will he a challenge for them and a new experience, but I am sure that they will not have too much difficulty with it.
I have one or two detailed questions for the noble and learned Lord. Less than a year ago we had a debate on this subject. Does he believe that anything has changed in that time? Last time the debate was in relation to a Bill, a piece of legislation that the Government had brought forward and sent through another place. If a Bill was good enough then, why is it not good enough now, rather than producing yet another declaratory Motion that appears to have little effect? Would it not be better to resolve the differences that appear to exist between the Houses and perhaps within this House? Besides resolving those differences, and so that we can better understand the compromises that are talked about, would it not he better to have a Bill, with amendments proposed and debated, in the normal way'?
What will the Government do in the event of a disagreement between this House and another place? If the result is the same as last time. will the Government shrug their shoulders and say, "There we are, we tried, but that is the end of that for this Parliament", or will that encourage them to bring forward a Bill'?
I believe that it would be useful for the House to know a little more about the Government's thinking. Even better, perhaps the Government should publish a draft Bill and give it pre-legislative scrutiny. That is very much the fashion of the time.
Perhaps we should decide whether the House should sit at 11 o'clock after we have seen the final speakers' list. If there is an enormous number of speakers, and the Government are so keen for us to debate hunting once more, perhaps the debate should take place over two days rather than the House sitting at 11 o'clock.
I ask all those questions in the usual spirit of helpfulness and co-operation. I know that the Government will see them as such. However, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Peston, 1 wonder whether we should take his advice and let another place tear itself apart over this issue while we have a debate on the future of the European economy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, on the one hand, that noble Lords on the Benches opposite do not want a debate at all, but, on the other hand, that we should spend two days on it. Which is his option?
There is no question of the House of Commons tearing itself apart. Were 1 a betting man, and had I' a spare £5 note, I would willingly bet the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, on any odds that he cared to offer me, that the House of Commons will vote for a ban on hunting with hounds. I am ready to sit down while he takes me up on my offer!

1541
Our manifesto—unlike the party of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we are able to deliver on our manifesto—states:
"we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked [in the Lords] we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved".
I believe that it is wise to revisit this matter. It is an issue on which many people feel passionately and on which some are open to rational debate. It is possible that we can arrive at some sort of legislative compromise. If that is possible, Parliament should have this opportunity. That is all we are offering. In the other place there will be a day's debate. In this House, quite fairly, and I hope honourably, I have suggested that, because passions run high and because many of your Lordships are genuinely interested, we ought to start at 11 o'clock in the morning so that we have ample opportunity for every voice to be heard.
I remind your Lordships that this is a perfectly civilised way to deal with the matter. On 12th March 2001 the Second Reading debate on the Hunting Bill started at seven minutes past three. According to my record, there were 63 speakers, not counting interrupters, and there were 10 hours and 41 minutes of debate. Most noble Lords who were present, or who took part or who read the debate, thought that that provided a fair opportunity to discuss the topic so that every voice could be heard. In suggesting that we start at 11 o'clock I am trying to accommodate all noble Lords who have differing views that they want to express.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Leader of the House for his statement and support his view that the debate should start at 11 o'clock so as to give a full opportunity for noble Lords to express their opinions. Like the Leader of the Official Opposition, on these Benches we too shall have a free vote.
I suggest that the crucial issue will be how the debate is framed, and whether, as the noble and learned Lord implies, we should offer the whole range of options that are before the House. That is the crucial basis on which it may conceivably be possible to reach a reasonable consensus. The noble and learned Lord's well known ability to arbitrate and to mediate almost anything will be put to an extreme test by trying to frame the Motion so that all the options can be seriously considered.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Baroness. We shall have a free vote on these Benches. This is an entirely appropriate issue for a free vote. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness. We need to have all the options available so that they can be voted on. That is our purpose. The drafting will he technical and that is why we want to
1542
spend a little time producing a range of options that will be available for your Lordships to discuss, to debate and to vote upon.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to put a further question to the noble and learned Lord. In his original statement he said, not unexpectedly, that the Motion that will he put before your Lordships' House has to be thought out by the Government and presumably thought out in the light of what happens in another place where there is to be a free vote. If the debate in another place is to take place the day before the debate in this House, we shall not have much notice of the government Motion. Therefore, would it be better, from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of this House, if there were an interval of a day or two preferably several days—between the decisions of another place and our discussion in this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has mistaken my point. The purpose of holding the debate in the Commons first—if your Lordships will allow me to give my view—is to allow your Lordships to be informed by what has been said and decided upon in the Commons, but not oppressed by it. I believe that that is a perfectly proper way of approaching the matter. I did not say that it will be a government Motion. I said that the House authorities are considering the form of the Motion. As has been said by the noble Baroness, it should be couched in such a way that reasonable options are available to be debated and voted upon.
Lord Elton: My Lords, presumably the question being asked in the other place is exactly the same as the question being asked in this House. I am a little puzzled therefore that it is only our House that is considering the terms of the Motion. Is there not some sort of collusion between the two Houses?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Police Reform Bill PEI
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [National Policing Plan]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert "After consultation with relevant persons,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, which is grouped with Amendment No. 11, I crave the indulgence of the Committee to speak for a moment on the broad debate to set these amendments into context.
We are about to commence a serious Committee stage. In my experience Part 1 of this Bill is unique. Every clause within it has attracted the Motion that it should not stand part of the Bill. Since I have been in this Chamber, which is now more than eight years, I have not come across that before, nor have I found anybody else who has. It is therefore a unique situation. A number of reasons lie behind that difficulty and I crave the indulgence of the Committee to run over the salient points.
I have said before that one of the functions of this Chamber is not solely to consider the use that might be made of powers in Bills by honourable persons; we have to consider the use of those powers by those who may he less honourable than we expect Members of Parliament to be. However honourable we may be, we cannot guarantee—this makes me immensely sad—the honour of all of our successors. If one considers the powers written into Part 1 of the Bill in particular, there is concern that in the wrong hands those powers would he open to abuse.
A second concern is that the Bill takes the Secretary of State into the micro-management of the police service. I have two problems with that. I have spent a long time in public life and I am not yet wholly convinced that Whitehall knows best when it comes to administering services to the public. My experience suggests that, on balance, Whitehall probably does not know best and that it is better to let the people who are dealing with the problems on the ground get on with running those services, to encourage them in doing so and, of course, to steer them in the way that Whitehall wishes to go.
But this Bill virtually gives the Secretary of State the power to give orders to platoon commanders, certainly company commanders, in the field. That is a strange situation. It is not good for the morale of the police service that we have legislation before us which apparently suggests a lack of confidence in the thousands of people throughout the country who do an extremely good job on behalf of the public. That is the effect of the Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill breaks the normal lines of communication from the Home Office through police authorities to chief constables. Because it does so, it begins to erode both the authority of senior officers in the field and provides the possibility that the regulations that come from the Home Office will affect operational performance. That is not desirable.
The third reason the Bill is wrong is that it flies in the face of the Government's supposed devotion to devolution and the movement of authority out from
1544
Whitehall and Westminster to other parts of the country. If ever there was a measure drawing the reins of control severely into the centre, it is Part 1 of the Bill. We see a serious situation arising in Part 1 and I hope that, as we go through the Bill, there will be some movement from the Government. If not, we shall face severe problems.
The Bill opens by saying,
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State … to prepare a National Policing Plan [and] to lay that plan before Parliament".
There is nothing wrong with that. But, unusually, the Secretary of State can sit down and write out the plan without bothering to consult anyone. I do not suppose that in practice any Secretary of State would do that. But we have had this debate on consultation many times in many other fields.
Amendment No. 1 simply inserts the words,
"After consultation with relevant persons",
in front of the words,
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 11 deals with the same aspect of the subject and says,
"Before preparing the National Policing Plan for each year. the Secretary of State shall consult",
the persons whom he considers to represent police authorities, chief constables and so forth.
I have taken part in many a debate in this Chamber in the past concerning whether or not we should list those who are to be consulted. Once we start making lists, we inevitably get into the argument as to whether it is right to include this or that particular group, why groups have been left out, and so forth. I prefer Amendment No. 1 but we consider it wise to back both horses in this race; hence the two amendments before us. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support my noble friend. It is a matter of important principle, for the reasons that he gave, that his suggestion should be adopted. The Secretary of State, in this Bill in particular, should not act without consulting all interested parties.
Looking ahead, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to consider, for example, Clause 9 where the commission is appointed by the Secretary of State. Surely as we go through the passage of the Bill, as my noble friend suggested in principle, that ought to be in consultation with the same sort of people—not necessarily word for word—referred to in Amendment No. 11. I support the amendment and the principle for which my noble friend contends.
4 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: I begin by declaring an interest as the vice-chairman of the Thames Valley Police Authority, of which I have been a member for some nine years. I am also on the committee of the Association of Police Authorities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his letter, which I believe that he has circulated widely, responding to the briefing paper produced by the Association of Police Authorities.

1545
The police authorities have, through their national body the APA, given strong support to the Government's aim of modernising the police service. We all want an efficient modern police service that, so far as possible, meets the needs of the public. We all want our local communities to benefit from improvements in policing. Police authorities inject that local voice into debates on the direction in which the service should be moving.
Police authorities and forces have generally welcomed the proposals for a national policing plan. We agree with the Government that a national plan should provide a useful vehicle for setting out clearly in one place the Government's expectations of the police service. Our amendments seek to improve the Government's proposals by including on the face of the Bill various provisions relating to the contents of the plan; how it is to be drawn up; and where it is to be published.
Amendment No. 6 standing in my name seeks specifically to ensure that the important role which the police play in policing our roads and in preventing accidents and casualties is taken into account. I remind the Minister that on our roads each year 3,500 people are killed and 38,000 are seriously injured and require hospital treatment. That role is not mentioned prominently in the Bill nor in the duties of the Secretary of State. The matter is overlooked because the media focus on crime rates and detections and have, shall we say, almost a love affair with the motorist, which blocks out the issue of road casualties. I should welcome a commitment from the Government that roads policing will feature in a national policing plan.
The amendment also requires the Home Secretary to publish the national policing plan by the end of October of the year before that to which it applies. It is critically important that we build a deadline into the legislation. The White Paper says that the Government will produce the national plan by the end of the calendar year. There is no such commitment in the Bill.
Hard experience suggests that this is not a sufficient safeguard. For example, in January this year—and I should like to impress this matter on the Minister—the Home Secretary announced his proposed ministerial priorities for policing and best value performance indicators. We are obliged as a police authority to consult with all kinds of people—the business community, the minority communities and people who are excluded in one way or another. We must consult locally. It is a long and laborious process in which I have been involved. To receive in January the Home Secretary's draft objectives after one has consulted everyone and when the document is almost ready for the printers—
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to intervene. But I think that the noble Lord has departed slightly and gone beyond the contents of Amendment No. 6, which is in this first group. He has moved on to a subsequent issue.
Lord Bradshaw: I apologise. Members of the Committee will have to put that down to inexperience.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to place on the face of the Bill a clear obligation on the Home Secretary to consult the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO, NCIS and NCS on the contents of the plan. We have tabled a number of similar amendments throughout Part I of the Bill.
There is a fundamental principle to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred, and to which I shall refer. We made clear at Second Reading our concerns that Part 1 of the Bill radically shifts the balance of the tripartite relationship in favour of the Home Secretary. It diminishes the say which local people, through their policing authorities, have over local policing. The amendment seeks to act as a counterweight. We are sure that the Minister and the Home Secretary want to see crime and the fear of crime reduced, but these proposals are too dramatic.
The Government have said that they will set up a national police forum. Again that is welcome. But there are two concerns that I want to raise. First, we understand that under current plans the APA and ACPO will each have one place on the forum so that the representatives of other interests can be accommodated. We agree that there should be an inclusive approach and that those with an interest in policing should have a voice on the forum. But we must also recognise the statutory role and responsibilities of police authorities and chief constables in the governance of policing. Their role is qualitatively different from that of—for example—local authorities or representatives of minority communities.
Secondly, the forum will have no statutory status. A future Home Secretary may decide that he does not want a forum and abolish it. There is nothing to stop him doing that.
Therefore, it is essential that the Home Secretary is required by law to consult the two other tripartite parties. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Fowler: I strongly support the intention of these amendments with regard to a national policing plan. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that there is a danger that the plan will be seen by the public as indicating some lack of confidence in the service itself. If we are to have such a plan. it must not be just some piece of public relations; it must be informed by the widest possible consultation, and particularly involve those actually in the police service. The officials at the Home Office will not have to implement the plan; nor do they have the experience on the ground to advise on what is involved. That point needs underlining. We are not dealing with an unsuccessful low-performing service, but with a service which has great respect from the public here and the admiration of overseas governments.
Obviously, I do not claim that everything is perfect. But generally, the rapport between the police and the public in this country is better than in any other

1547
country of which I have experience, and certainly in Europe. That is not because numerically the strength of the police in this country is stronger: we are under-policed in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Condon. made a very strong point about that at Second Reading when he compared the strength of' the Metropolitan Police and the strength of the New York Police Department.
It is all very well talking about introducing policies of zero tolerance, but one needs the police to implement a policy of that kind. Frankly, with present strengths, that would be quite impossible. We should therefore listen to what the police service has to say. We should give respect to a service which has served us extremely well over past years. We should certainly consult police authorities; we should certainly consult chief constables and superintendents; but in many ways, the characteristic strength of the British police is the ordinary serving policeman, the policeman working on the streets around the country. We should consult him.
We should consult the Police Federation. The Government's attitude to the Police Federation concerns ine. That is one reason that I rise to speak at this point. I was frankly amazed to hear the Home Secretary's attack on the Police Federation, when he said that the federation had,
"been resisting change for decades".
The Home Secretary is plainly wrong to say that.
As it happens, I have observed the Police Federation during several decades: in the late 1960s, when I was home affairs correspondent at The Times; in the 1970s, when I was a Home Office spokesman in another place; and in the 1990s, when I was shadow Home Secretary. It is ridiculous to brush aside its point of view as simply standing in the way of change for decade after decade. When I first knew it, it was campaigning to point out the dangerous wastage levels from the police—the number of police who were leaving the service prematurely. It was right, and on that the Home Office was wrong. To come up to date, it is campaigning against the use of civilian staff to patrol our streets. It is absolutely right on that. I regard that as one of the worst proposals to be made by the Home Office for a very long time. Frankly, the Government are wrong.
The federation that has been opposing change for a decade after decade and has stood in the way of progress has had in my time as its parliamentary advisers none less than the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and Lord Morris, from the Labour Benches. What the Home Secretary has said is profoundly wrong and—I hope that the Minister understands this—causes a great deal of anger among the police service because it shows a total ignorance of police history.
But that shows something else: why we should consult and consult widely. The country does not want a plan imposed from above by the Home Office without consultation. That is the point. If we are to have a plan—there are questions about that—there must be a requirement to consult. The Home Secretary
1548
can obviously reject advice that he is given, but he must at least be made aware of that advice and of other points of view. We in Parliament must also be made aware of the advice given and be able to question the Home Secretary about why it has been rejected.
My fear at present is that the Government are going down the wrong path in their relations with the police. To accept my noble friend's amendment would show a much better sign to the police service.
4.15 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I rise briefly to support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Fowler about consultation. While I was a Member of the other place for 27 years I received many representations from my police authority and the chief constable, usually about funding matters. Rarely have I received representations on constitutional issues, but in this case, the chairman of Norfolk police authority has written to me in strong terms about the danger of a fundamental shift in the balance of the tripartite arrangements between the Government, police authorities and chief constables that this and other provisions in Part 1 could involve. While no doubt the Minister will tell us that of course the Government intend to consult and that all the provisions will be carried out in a reasonable way, the concern is that under a different government or Home Secretary the powers could be used to override the views of local police authorities and—under later provisions—chief constables around the country.
I cannot understand why the Government are likely to resist this group of amendments. It seems to me sensible for the Government always to want to consult in advance of producing the national police plan. To link the amendment with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, if those arc not accepted there may easily be no consultation at all. Police authorities may go through all the processes of consultation and so on in drawing up their own arrangements for the year ahead and then find that they are completely overridden by the Home Secretary's diktat. That is just one instance in which there is a real concern that a future government could fundamentally change the balance. That is why it is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to accept this and the next group of amendments. Without them, the authoritarian attitude of the Home Office will be under suspicion.
Lord Dholakia: We also support the amendment. Our Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 11. There is no fundamental difference between them in terms of the consultation process, and I fully endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I also fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said about the bodies that are essential to the consultation process if we are to have positive policing in this country.
As was mentioned on Second Reading, the tripod that consists of the local police authority. central government and the local community is essential. If we disturb the process by suggesting that much control will be exercised centrally, we create a dangerous

1549
situation. We shall highlight that later through a number of amendments that we intend to the issue in Committee and on Report.
We do not intend by our amendment to question the powers of the Home Secretary. Nor do we question the need to set out strategic priorities for the police. That is right and important. Our amendment sets out how such plans should be produced. it is common sense that the people who must implement the plans and those whom they may need to consult—essentially, we are talking about local consultation—are involved. We go slightly further in our proposals than does the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, by identifying some relevant bodies, but the list is not exclusive.
In essence, the formula suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of,
"consultation with relevant persons",
may create such an obligation, but we should also write in statute the minimum number of bodies that should be consulted before producing a plan. As has already been pointed out by Members of the Committee, in the hands of a good Home Secretary we may have no problems hut, from time to time, people may be in power who abuse their authority. Then we are headed for serious difficulty.
The other essential element in producing plans is the involvement of the local community. We seem to underestimate the importance of local consultative councils. To a great extent, their interests are represented by the police authority. Their participation is important. Although we may have a national strategic plan. we should never forget what is required in local situations. What may be required in Cumbria may be quite different from what is required in metropolitan London. Those groups must take part in consultation.
Finally, in the Police Act 1996 there was an obligation on the Home Office to consult the tripartite state partners. What made the Government reject that proposition in this Bill? It is an essential element. I hope that the Minister will take into account the views of those of us on these Benches and on the Official Opposition Benches and accept the amendment, so that the partnership can become a reality.
Lord Elton: The structure of Part I of the Bill is interesting. It is open to the Minister to reply that there are requirements to consult in one form or another scattered among subsequent clauses and to say that the national policing plan is merely an announcement of What the Secretary of State intends to do with the powers granted him by those clauses. However, he will be committed to the national policing plan, and its feasibility and advisability should be considered by the Secretary of State in consultation with those most closely affected by it.
It is leaving it too late to rely on subsequent provisions for consultation; for instance, Clause 7(3) and (4), forming part of the proposed new section of the 1996 Act. By the time the Secretary of State—or his
1550
surrogate, as it is in subsection (4) arrives at the consultation, he will be committed to the policy set out in the national policing plan. My noble friend is right to say that the consultation should be brought forward. I would not dissent from what has been said by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches about specifying some of the bodies to be consulted.
My noble friend raised a concern that is not just a bogey; it is a real danger. The structure of this part of the Bill could be used by an ambitious and irresponsible political party in five or 10 years' time to issue directions to the police in a way that would make them subject to political control. We saw that in Germany in the 1930s, and it is as well for those of us who remember that time—even if we were fairly young—to make sure that others do not forget. That purpose lies behind many amendments to come, including several of mine, but at the moment we are simply talking about prudent, good government. The matter should be taken forward in consultation and not by the Secretary of State on his own.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree warmly with what my noble friend Lord Fowler said; I need not repeat it. The reason why the Bill is viewed with a degree of suspicion that verges on hostility is that it seems to be just one more acceptance of the idea that all wisdom resides in the centre. It is unlikely that anybody agrees with that, but the view has been constantly pushed and promoted by successive governments. And it flourishes in no Whitehall department more strongly perhaps than in the Home Office.
If such a modest amendment, ably proposed by my noble friend, is rejected, it will be taken as a shutting of the door to consultation. It will be seen as saying, in effect, that consultation, even in as complex a field as policing, forms no part of our thinking. I am certain that that is not the approach of the Minister who will reply to the debate. I hope that he will make it clear, by accepting the amendment, that it is not the Government's approach either.
The statute book is full of requirements for consultation. It would seem distinctly odd to leave it out on this occasion. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. It is such a modest amendment, of a kind that government after government—even the unreasonable ones—have had little difficulty in accepting. It would show an extreme degree of pig-headedness and obstinacy if such a reasonable amendment were to be rejected.
The Minister has displayed the great virtue, when confronted with a briefing with which he does not feel comfortable, of being able to forget that it is there or of saying, "Here is something that I don't agree with" and accepting a wider view. To reject an amendment asking for a degree of consultation about such a huge, sensitive matter would be the height of unwisdom. I hope that the Minister will think carefully before doing so at the behest of a department that is not by any means unable, from time to time, to make major errors.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I also support the amendments in this grouping. The Minister will by

1551
now have gathered that there is a certain amount of surprise that the requirement for consultation was not part of the Bill at the outset. I suspect that many are worried by comparable omissions, given that, in relation to the citizen and the state, there can be no more sensitive area than policing.
I want to make a point arising from the letter that the Minister sent out on St Valentine's day in response to the APA briefing. In connection with this group of amendments about required consultation, he said:
"As to the first of these, the White Paper made clear that we propose to establish a non-statutory National Policing Forum to provide a formal structure for consultation on the plan with the tripartite partners".
That is clear. No doubt, in a minute, the Minister will ask himself, "What is all this about?". It is about making absolutely sure that we put in the Bill that which is in the Police Act 1996. Section 37 of that Act places a requirement on the Home Secretary to consult with regard to his plans for police authorities, so it seems bizarre that there is no comparable requirement in this Bill to consult on the more important matter of the national plan.
In the St Valentine's day letter, the Minister went on to say that the Government wished to keep the forum on a non-statutory basis in order to provide flexibility. None of the amendments requires the forum to be on a statutory basis. If the consultation requirement is written into the Bill, it will not affect the flexibility relating to the forum. With others, I am somewhat perplexed as to why the amendments have not already been made.
Lord Condon: I support Amendment No. 1 and the spirit of Amendments Nos. 6 and 11. I agree with the comments that noble Lords have made about the amendments. Putting a duty to consult into the Bill will be seen as an act of good faith and will assuage fears that, taken as a whole, Part 1 significantly moves the balance of power away from local police authorities and chief constables to central government.
Lord Renton: If the national policing plan is to succeed, it will require the co-operation of the Police Federation. Neither Clause 1 as it stands nor, alas, any of the amendments so admirably put forward by noble Lords, refer at all to the Police Federation. I do hope that, in further considering Clause 1 and the importance of the national policing plan, the Government will decide that the Police Federation must be consulted.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful for the contributions made to the first group of amendments, although I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was about to hold a debate on whether Part I should stand part of the Bill. I then thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, had jumped the gun because the date in October arises in the next grouping of amendments.
1552
I know that this may disappoint some Members of the Committee, hut I am happy to say that I am pleased to accept the spirit of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has just remarked in making a point about one amendment and commenting on the spirit of the others, consultation is important and we want to get it right. I do not intend to pooh-pooh that and I am certainly keen to take this away for further consideration.
In his brief remarks, the noble Lord. Lord Phillips, was the only noble Lord who has spoken to this grouping to mention the proposed national policing forum. One might have thought that it simply did not exist, whereas as I pointed out in my letter and as was made abundantly clear in the White Paper, in particular in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Executive Summary on page 9, we have set out how we propose to involve the national policing forum in the plan. So we have no difficulty in accepting the spirit of the amendments. I shall certainly reflect on the points that have been made in advance of the Report stage because this is such an important part of the Bill.
It is true to say that the Bill is littered with aspects of consultation. I do not seek to hide behind that by saying that I want to reflect on the way that Clause 1 has been drafted. I remind noble Lords that in the White Paper we made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the national policing plan, as set out in the new clause introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill, is to consider strategic policing priorities. That hits it on the head; this does not concern micro-managing the police force. That is not its function. If a matter moves away from the area of strategy, then it will be thrown out. We are not interested and it would not form part of the action. Let us do away with any red herrings before we start, otherwise we shall hold debates on things that are not being proposed and are not going to happen. It would be far better to debate the Bill in order to make it a decent piece of legislation before we send it down the corridor to the other place to see what a mess they can make of it using, their sometimes different procedures from those used in this House.
Again, I should like to make this absolutely clear: this is not about micro-managing the police. It concerns only general strategic policing priorities for the police forces. It is crucial that Members of the Committee keep that in mind.
Certain elements of the plan will in any case be the subject of consultation in their own right. Section 37 of the 1996 Act has already been mentioned. It requires the Home Secretary to consult on the national objectives for police authorities. The national policing forum will be a non-statutory body to advise. ft will be appointed and up and running at some point in March, before we reach the Report stage. It will advise the Home Secretary on policing matters in general and the national policing plan in particular. Its membership will include representatives of the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police staff associations, as well as victims' and ethnic minority groups.

1553
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out in relation to my letter, it is true that we want to keep the body non-statutory in order that it can remain flexible, but the core membership of the forum will be the tripartite partners. I want to make that point absolutely clear to the Committee. As I have said, the focus will be on strategic priorities for the police forces of England and Wales. To the extent that the plan will impact on the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, consultation would naturally extend to the directors general and the service authorities.
I want to say to noble Lords that we will look at the drafting of this clause. We genuinely want consultation and there is no attempt to do anything underhand here. I realise that today it would appear that I am alone in speaking for the Home Office, which does not seem to have many supporters. But in a mature democracy everyone should be suspicious and should ask searching questions. That is the function of this House and the other place.
Having said that we shall take away the amendments and consider them further, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.
Lord Elton: It is important to get one thing clear if the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee are not to be at cross-purposes during the following deliberations. There is a very important difference between statutory and non-statutory institutions. Statutory institutions are protected by Parliament whereas non-statutory institutions are not. Statutory institutions can be removed only by primary legislation, if they are set up by primary legislation. Non-statutory bodies can be swept aside according to the policy of any incoming government with a different political view from the one that set them up.
I am reminded of those pillboxes that were put up in 1939. They were built of brick with earth heaped up all around them. Sixty years later, the brickwork is still in place, while the earth has gone. Statutory bodies are rather like the brickwork of those pillboxes, while non-statutory bodies resemble the earthwork. When we are considering something as fundamental as the control of the police force in a democracy, it is essential to stand on brickwork rather than on earthwork. That is why we shall wish to put more into statute than perhaps the noble Lord is minded to do at the moment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that the noble Lord will be able to move a little further. He has already been helpful, but if what he has said amounts to a declaration that it is the Government's intention to consult at all stages over the whole of this very sensitive field, then why on earth do they not say so on the face of the Bill? I would ask the noble Lord to say today not merely that he will consider this, important though that is, but that he will bring forward on Report an amendment which makes it clear in this clause that consultation there will be.
Lord Rooker: During the course of our deliberations on the Bill there will be many times when I shall have
1554
to say to noble Lords that there is a line in the sand and that it is the view of the Home Secretary and the Home Office that that is the line. I am not saying that here. I shall take away all that noble Lords have said with the force and experience that they can bring to bear. I shall ask officials to see whether we can find a form of words used today by noble Lords that could be put into the Bill in order to meet their requirements. That form would keep what the Home Secretary wants to see and would meet the will of the Committee. Since we are in any case saying what we are going to do, there should be no major problem about finding a form of words. They may not make the forum a statutory body, but a form of words will be found.
As I have said, I shall take the amendments away and consider them. Unlike in my previous incarnation, I understand that in this place—the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will know this well—should someone say that they will take something away and return with a response on Report, if they then have nothing to say at that stage, they are in the doghouse.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the discussion ends, will the noble Lord ask his advisers to consider that the clause will repeal a statutory provision as to consultation? Will he ask them what effect that will have in a court of law?
Lord Rooker: I shall certainly do that.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I want to be absolutely clear. The Minister said that he sees the benefits of not putting the national policing forum and another body onto a statutory basis. His resistance is to making statutory the body to be consulted. The thrust of our argument is that the requirement to consult should be statutory. I assume that that is the issue he will address.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, many of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, have all supported the thrust of the amendments we are addressing.
I should apologise to the Minister because I did not make clear when I had finished my general opening remarks and shifted to dealing with the specific amendments in the group. I should have done that. If I had, he would not have had the slight confusion as to whether I was addressing Clause 1 stand part. I was not doing that; I addressed my remarks to all of the clauses in Part I of the Bill.
However, I wish to make one point. It is purely fortuitous but it illustrates the background danger, the reason why we are concerned and why we need to put these safeguards into the Bill. At lunchtime, I fell into conversation—it is easy to do—with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who shares my room. With no prompting—I had not done anything to introduce the subject of the Bill—he said, "You know, it's a funny thing, Bill, but in Northern Ireland the Prime Minister controls the careers of individual policemen". That, of

1555
course, is a situation which would not be acceptable here. I am sorry. It is not Northern Ireland; it is southern Ireland. Let me get my facts right. "In southern Ireland the Prime Minister controls the careers of individual policemen". That would be clearly intolerable.
My noble friend Lord Elton made a very important point about the difference between having a statutory requirement to consult and a non-statutory requirement. His allegory of the brick fortress surrounded by an earth bank is appropriate and I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that. We would say that the issue of consultation should be explicit and not implicit in the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for conceding the principle of the amendments and I shall study his remarks with care. I shall study with even greater care and even greater pleasure the product of his remarks when we return to the Bill at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after "State," insert "not less than six months"
The noble Lord said: It may seem a diversion, but I went through a difficult baptism of fire when I first got involved in local government finance in County Hall, Essex. It happened early in my career. The old sweats in County Flail were in generous mode when they put a slip of a boy on the finance committee. They probably thought that I would not be much trouble—they may well have been right—but the baptism of fire was quite difficult.
In the middle of February 1966 or 1967, we were well into the budget-making process in County Hall when the government of the day had a financial crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. Six weeks before we were due to put a budget before the council, we received a request from the government to remove £2 million from our expenditure. In those days the county council's budget was about £50 million. We achieved the savings, of course—we had to. We were told that we had to do it and we did it.
But if you get that kind of request from a government late on in the planning process, it disrupts life quite considerably. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are both designed to create a situation where that kind of disruption is not brought about. Indeed, they are designed to create a situation in which there is a smooth and almost seamless process between the creation of the national policing plan and guidelines for the police and their incorporation into the planning systems of local forces across the country.
I hope that the Minister will again agree that the principles of the amendments are unexceptionable, even if he wishes to quibble about the detail. Police authorities are responsible bodies which want to work with and help the Government in making the police service work smoothly and in fulfilling the ambitions of society generally to improve law and order matters.
1556
I am absolutely confident that chief constables have the same ambition. I would go further. If one were to go down through the police service, I do not think that anyone would quarrel with that ambition.
Before that can happen, one needs a seamless system in which the planning process in the strategic sense starts at a sufficiently early stage of the financial year—the calendar year, the administrative year or whatever time of the year you want to operate from—to enable the national conclusions to be smoothly incorporated into the local conclusions, so that, ultimately, there is not friction. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are two different ways of expressing that sentiment.
The amendment would be enormously helpful to the smooth operating of this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept its principle even if he cannot accept its detail, much in the way that he did with the previous group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I apologise for having got this matter confused previously. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that, in a good, well-ordered situation, the strategic priorities to which the Minister referred should be put at the beginning of a process and not somewhere towards its end. We should like to see an amendment to the Bill in which those strategic objectives are made clear at the beginning. We should also like to see them confined to a few strategic objectives and not, as the Home Office is sometimes wont to do, sub-divided into "A"s and "B"s. We do not wish to be told, for example, that there will be many fewer best value performance indicators only to have them divided and sub-divided in such a way that there are as many as we had before.
We certainly want to respond to government directions. It makes it a lot easier to respond throughout the police authorities if the strategic objectives are received in good time.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I, too, believe it to be essential that the indication by the Home Office of what it would like police authorities to do should he given at the earliest possible stage. As the Committee is aware, I chair the Metropolitan Police Authority. Today, we spent a happy half-hour wrestling with issues relating to the setting of our own policing priorities and the targets for individual borough command units. We were faced with a situation whereby, quite recently, the Home Office had indicated the priorities it is seeking in the coming financial year—when we were already well into the process of discussion, debate and consultation at local level about local priorities.
There should be a proper sequencing of these events. The ideal arrangement is that the national tone is set first. That allows for consideration at police authority level and then local discussion about what it means in practice at local level.
If, for some internal reason, the Home Office does not believe that October is the right point in the year to set out its views on overall policing priorities, it

1557
needs to recognise that it will in essence be influencing a different year's set of priorities. This process occurs each year, and the results of a consultation exercise in one year influences what is done the following year. It would be much better if the Bill made it explicit that the plan should emerge by 31st October, so as to enable police authorities to have sufficient time to consult on the local implications and on how it might be translated into local priorities and plans.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble colleague Lord Harris of Haringey, although I am not allowed in this Chamber to call him "my noble friend". As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I should declare that I too am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Association of Police Authorities. More relevant to this debate is the fact that, as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I chair a committee with the grand title, the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee—the word "planning" being a reference to the production of the annual police plan for the Metropolitan Police Authority. Indeed, I chair the planning panel which does the detailed work.
I want to reiterate and emphasise the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. He referred to our half-hour discussion during the full authority meeting this morning. As he will recognise, that is but a small part of the total discussion that has taken place throughout the year on the production of a police plan for a service as large and complex as that in London. During this morning's discussion, we commented that the production of the police was virtually an all-theyear-round event. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, told us that we "could have April off"—although I suspected that he was being a little optimistic.
This is a complex business. We are keen that it should be—to use an awful expression—a bottom-up process. The consultation with the London boroughs is important. Meaningful consultation takes place not only with the operational command units but also with the PCCGs, the crime and disorder partnerships—of which there are 32 in the Metropolitan area. Next year, they will have their own bespoke targets. That is important. It gives them a degree of ownership. We have to take full account of the Metropolitan Police Service's own priorities—of the MPA's priorities. In London, for better or worse, we have the added complexity of the mayor's priorities to consider as best we may. Therefore, when we come to consider the Home Secretary's priorities—the national policing plan—it is extremely important that we receive those indications in good time and that they properly set the strategic framework in which all the consultation, discussion and consideration can take place.
This year, we did not receive the Home Secretary's priorities until January. These are of national concern and do not relate merely to London. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right to say that effectively that is looking at the year beyond. We are so far down the process by that stage that they can have little influence, and it is disruptive. Not having those priorities—in
1558
this case not having the national policing plan—in a sense inhibits the discussion that takes place throughout the year. During the whole of that time we are wondering and speculating on the content of the plan.
Therefore, I strongly support whichever amendment is chosen. Both seek to achieve the same end. We should receive the national policing plan in good time. The date suggested is 31st October. From my experience in the Metropolitan Police area, that is the latest date by which we should receive it. The Bill as drafted suggests that we could receive the plan before 31st March. I know that it is not the intention, but it would be absurd if we received the plan in March. The intention as stated in the White Paper is that the plan should be published by 31st December. That is significantly too late. It would mean us actually receiving it on Christmas Eve and not beginning to consider it until the early part of January. That is too late. But even that date written on the face of the Bill as a requirement, as distinct from a good intention in a White Paper, would be a step forward.
The Bill should contain a requirement that the national policing plan is produced in good time—by 31st October—so that all police authorities can take the strategic framework properly into account in the lengthy consultations that some of us, quite properly, have to undertake. I hope that the Minister can be as accommodating with this set of amendments as he sought to be with the previous set.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may put a short question to the Minister. The White Paper said that the Government would produce the national plan by the end of the calendar year. Yet there is no specific commitment in the Bill. What were the reasons for omitting a time-scale? Effective plans require effective deadlines. One would have thought that essential. Why is no deadline laid down in the Bill?
Lord Rooker: First, perhaps I may respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It relates to a point raised at Second Reading. The Bill is not exclusively about implementing the White Paper. The White Paper goes way beyond the material in the Bill. Issues contained in the White Paper are being taken forward daily which are not included in the Bill. I ask the Committee to bear that in mind.
As to the date, I well understand that Members of the Committee who have spoken have first-hand experience of drawing up local plans for police authorities, which I do not have. I appreciate the constraints that they feel they are under.
If either of the amendments was on the face of the Bill, it would without question cause us considerable difficulties. It would make the overall process extremely tight. We do not believe that it is realistic.
We set out in the White Paper our commitment to publish the plan by the end of each calendar year. I am being more modest when I say this, but to publish on Christmas Eve would be outrageous.
Lord Tope: It is not unknown!
Lord Rooker: In terms of a yearly publication that would be a failure of public administration. To publish between Christmas and the new year would be even worse, or to publish the week before Christmas, when meetings will not be taking place. There is not much leeway, therefore, between that period and 31st October. I am not going to the stake over six weeks, and I do not believe that Members of the Committee should.
It is not as though the plan will appear without any warning. I must make that clear. The framework for local plans to achieve consistency in performance among police forces is important. However, to return to the previous set of amendments, the national policing forum will be drawn from the very organisations whose members prepare the local plans. So they will be more than aware of the content of the national plan before its formal publication. As I say, it will not appear without any warning whatever to the members of police authorities, who will be responsible for drawing up their plans. We are determined to stick to our commitment to publish the plan well before the end of each calendar year, so that there is a reasonable period before the end of the calendar year. We have no secret plan to dump the plan on police authorities so that they do not have an opportunity to consult. I know nothing about existing plans. However, today is 28th February and I wonder why in London it has been left so late to discuss these issues. I suspect that this is not the first discussion on the forthcoming year. That is my little tease; please do not hold it against me!
I hope that this comment will be useful to the House. The White Paper states that the publication of the plan could provide the basis of an annual parliamentary debate on policing. I am new to this House; I am still learning. I asked the Whip whether this House has those important annual debates on the Army, Navy or Air Force, as does another place. My noble friend replied, "Not unless someone asks for it". I welcome debates in another place on policing and the penal side of the Home Office agenda. It is important to change the way in which Parliament considers the issue. We need to provide a fulcrum for debate to help those who are providing input into their local plans.
I cannot go beyond that. I admit that the consultation on priorities for best value performance indicators was delayed because of the planning and publication of the White Paper and the reform process contained within it. That is wholly exceptional and is not likely to arise again. I apologise for that delay. I realise the pressure it will have put on police authorities.
We want to publish the plan a reasonable period before the end of the calendar year so that we are not seen to "pull a fast one". We do not want knowingly to have poor conduct of public administration. We shall do our best to have plans published in a reasonable time. However, in their unpublished form the plans will be well known to members of the organisations who will prepare the local plan. They will not surprise anyone. I hope that I have taken a
1560
reasonable approach. I hope that we can reach agreement. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
5 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: In order that my noble friend's tease does not become part of perceived wisdom, I assure him that today's discussion by the Metropolitan Police Authority was the third by the full authority and followed numerous discussions by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the planning group and many others.
I hope that this issue is not developing for the Minister into one of those lines in the sand. For a policing plan to have local support there must be local consultation if it is to be implemented locally. My noble friend's offer was that the framework in which police authorities should operate would be published by mid-December. That is very late if there is to be meaningful local consultation informed by national priorities. That is why the amendments are framed as they are. I hope that my noble friend will ask whoever draws lines in the sand to consider whether an earlier date could be offered.
Lord Tope: As so often occurs, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I speak as one on these matters. Not for the first time the noble Lord has taken the words out of my mouth.
I am grateful to the Minister for his aspiration—I am not sure that it was a commitment—that publication would be by mid-December rather than the end of December. I apologise if 30 years of local government experience has made me a little cynical about things being published on Christmas Eve— or, more usually, at the end of July, with a requirement for a response by the beginning of September, an annual event. However, there is a significant difference between the middle of December and the end of October—the Budget. The Metropolitan Police Authority is a new authority. We are struggling, so far unsuccessfully, to match our budget planning with the police plan so that the budget can better reflect the policing priorities in the police plan. There are added complexities, given the structure of London government: it is the mayor's budget rather than the police authority budget.
The Minister will know—if he does not, the Whip sitting next to him does—that budget planning starts early in the year and builds in intensity throughout the autumn. By the middle of December it is, in effect, in its final stages, albeit the formal decisions are not taken until into the new year. A budget for any large organisation is pretty well set by Christmas. The revenue support grant settlement comes usually at the end of November or beginning of December. So there is a particular difference. It is not just the period of six weeks; it is an important six weeks if we are to achieve budget planning and police planning together. In London we have the added complication of having to submit a budget to the mayor to be consolidated into that of the Greater London Authority. But that is a specific London problem.

1561
The position I describe must apply to every police authority in the land. It is important to have the strategic framework. It is to be hoped that we shall not have too many surprises: we shall have a fairly good idea of it. But until one gets that framework it does not exist and one does not know what will arise. If we have the strategic framework we can be well advanced with the local—I hesitate to use that word in a London context—police authority planning scale which can be matched with the budget.
I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the issue. I did not understand why 31st October was so out of the question other than that the timing will be very tight. It is very tight already for every police authority in the country. Perhaps the Home Office should share some of that tightness.
Lord Rooker: If it were to be published by 31st October, it would have to be ready effectively by the end of July. That is the reality, because of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
I cannot make any commitments. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris said. So have others.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit of his reply. I hope that he will forgive what may sound like an acid comment. The brutal reality is that police and local government authorities throughout the country have to comply with deadlines. They do not have flexibility. It is not unknown for there to be deadlines in national planning.
The Minister has given a generally conciliatory reply to the amendments and the principle enunciated. We should all consider carefully what the noble Lord said. I hope that the Minister will think carefully about what has been said in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Tope. They have direct experience. If they will forgive me, it is relatively brief experience. It is only a short time since control of the Metropolitan Police was taken properly from the Home Office and given to a London authority, a most welcome move.
Whether the authority is new or over a century old, these matters must be dealt with properly and by due dates. That is the critical issue. The purpose of the amendments is to smooth that process. We shall study carefully what the Minister said. I hope that he will study what has been said by the noble Lords I mentioned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment..
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, after "Plan" insert "(including roads policing)"
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the important role that the police play in policing our roads and preventing accidents and casualties. It is an
1562
issue on which we have previously expressed our concern. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw mentioned earlier, we all know that more people are killed on the roads than are murdered. That is often overlooked by the media's focus on crime rates and detection. We very much hope that the Government will give a commitment to ensure that relevant statistics and information are included in the national plan so that the overall picture is much more balanced than the current focus on crime, from the tabloids in particular. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I understand why the noble Lord has moved the amendment. Any reasonable person concerned about road safety would naturally take that view. We want the national policing plan to provide a consistent framework for England and Wales and to set the priorities and objectives for the police. We place great importance on roads policing. Just because it is not mentioned specifically does not mean that we do not place great importance on it. The Bill is about reforming the police and the system within which they work so that we can be more effective in delivering reductions in crime and in the fear of crime. It does not single out any particular area of police work. On later parts of the Bill I shall go out of my way to point out why not. That is a matter for the chief constables, not the Home Secretary.
Road safety is an important issue. The Government's road safety strategy Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone has set a target of a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads and a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. Enforcement of all aspects of road traffic law must be an essential part of achieving those goals, which were raised more than once during Question Time just before Christmas, when we had a mini-debate about the speed of traffic.
Of course, it is open to the Secretary of State to include road policing in the priorities and objectives or in the regulations and codes of practice if he considers it necessary. We want the contents of the national plan to retain the flexibility provided by the current drafting, but that does not diminish the importance of road policing and road safety, to which we attach a high priority. The fact that they are not mentioned in the Bill does not mean that work on them is not being taken forward in other areas.
I hope that the noble Lord regards that as a robust response of support for the spirit of his amendment and that he will not seek to press it.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I hope that chief constables and police authorities will take due note of what he has said today. I am satisfied with his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, leave out "intending or"
The noble Lord said: I can put this point briefly. The Bill says that the national policing plan for a financial year,
"must describe what, in relation to that period, the Secretary of State is intending or proposing".
My simple question is: what, if anything, does "intending" mean? If it has no value or meaning here, it should clearly be left out. If, on the other hand, it has some additional meaning, I should be most grateful if the Minister would explain it to me. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall speak to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with Amendment No. 7. I share the quizzicality of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, with regard to Amendment No. 7. My amendment is equally simple. What is meant by "plans and advice"?
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can answer both noble Lords satisfactorily. They have asked fair questions, given the drafting of the Bill. The national plan will be a forward-looking document designed to give police authorities and police forces advance notice not only of the steps that the Secretary of State definitely intends to take but of those that he is proposing to take. There is a difference. For example, the Home Secretary may have a firm intention to issue revised policing objectives under Section 37 of the Police Act but he may only be proposing to make particular regulations or a code of practice. At the time when the national police plan is published, some of the regulations and codes of practice that it refers to might still be the subject of consultation and consideration. They may not be due to be finalised and to come into effect until the following year. However, they ought nevertheless to he included in the national policing plan so that people can see what is coming around the next bend.
The words that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is seeking to delete add clarity to the clause and should be retained because they allow more information to be given about what is in the Home Secretary's mind than would be the case if we narrowed the drafting by taking the words out. Similarly, the words that Amendment No. 10 would delete allow the flexibility for the contents of the plan to include matters not specifically mentioned elsewhere. Basically, they allow flexibility in the drafting of a plan. I therefore hope that noble Lords agree that they should be retained.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: If I may say so, the noble Lord has a most engaging quality of optimism and cheerfulness in his nature.
Lord Rooker: I am known for it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Never have I seen that optimism better illustrated than when the noble Lord said just now that he thought that including a
1564
declaration or an indication of the Home Secretary's intentions—as opposed to proposals—in the plan would add to its clarity. I differ profoundly with that. Very few Home Secretaries—except, of course, for my noble friend Lord Hurd, who is sitting on my left—have ever been able to make their intentions all that clear. It would be a terrible mistake to mix their intentions and their proposals. It would be a ghastly mixture. The intentions would need to be put in italics, or something like that, which would make the document extremely complicated and very inelegant. I hope that the Minister will not just dismiss that argument, because it is a serious point. Nobody would be helped by having the Home Secretary's intentions included in the plan at this stage. If they were simply intentions, as opposed to proposals, they would just muddle everything up. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to give the matter further thought.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, got rather the better end of the Minister's reply, because I was given no solace as to what plans might be considered—plans for whom, by whom and about what? The same goes for advice. On the first group of amendments, when questions were raised about the setting of strategic policing priorities, the Minister pointed out forcefully and convincingly that anything outside strategic policing would be ultra vires. Yet here we have a little weasel clause at the end of it all—the sting in the tail, it might be—that says blandly that the great plan can include anything by way of plans or advice. There is no qualification of that. I, too, would be most grateful if the Minister might review that. We might even have a conversation about it before Report.
Lord Rooker: If I have not answered satisfactorily the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I shall take advice from my learned friends in that respect. However, I do not believe that that undermines the fact that we are talking about strategic policing priorities. Those words are not, if you like, the Trojan Horse to undermine the fact that we are discussing strategic plans.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord Lord Peyton, who was most complimentary about my optimism. But I am a Home Office Minister so, as I acknowledged from a sedentary position, I am always optimistic. The noble Lord must be realistic. Events may be occurring at the time that the plan is formally published that are ongoing for the Home Secretary. Publication will be before Christmas, so there is progress there. However, there is a difference between giving a firm indication of what will happen as opposed to what the Home Secretary wants to happen. For example, at the time of publication, regulations and codes of practice may have been submitted for consultation with other bodies and they may not form part of the flow—the cliff-edge of decision-making—because, as noble Lords have observed, the planning will be ongoing. The annual plan may be published, but planning continues throughout the year.

1565
We wish to take account of matters that are in the system but upon which no final decision has been taken at the time of publication of the annual plan. I believe that providing greater clarity is a good idea. It will enable noble Lords to hold Ministers to greater account.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to prolong the argument, but there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary including his intentions if he feels that that would be of assistance. However, to lay upon him a duty to specify his intentions at a time when they may not be all that well defined seems to me to be foolish from his point of view. I still believe that the Government would be wise in their own interests, and for the sake of simplicity and clarity, to delete this term. Nothing that the noble Lord has said thus far has convinced me to the contrary. Nevertheless, every now and again—even in my sort of gloomy make-up, which is much more gloomy than that of the Minister—I do allow shades of optimism to appear. The latter lead me to hope that the noble Lord will allow his good nature a fair rein. Perhaps he will give this a little further thought between now and Report stage, and conclude that a very unlikely event has come to pass; namely, that I am right. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: When the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moved the first amendment today, he expressed the concern on this side of the Chamber about the proposal that would give the Home Secretary and Whitehall far greater control over policing than has ever been the case. There are various assurances, promises and protocols from the Government, and we have been told that no new powers are to be introduced as a last resort. However, assurances and protocols are not binding; indeed, as explained earlier, they can be ignored by a future Home Secretary.
I am delighted with the way that the Minister has conceded on some of the major worries that have been expressed on this clause, especially on consultation. On that basis, it is not my intention to pursue the matter further at this stage. Can the Minister say whether it will be possible for him between now and Report to give us some indication of how his mind is working in terms of the consultation process that was identified earlier? That would help to save a repetition of this sort of debate on Report. Obviously, if we are unhappy with the situation we shall certainly return to the matter at that stage.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the noble Lord for opposing the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. He has given me the opportunity to express my point of view. I regard this as just another example of thoroughly inelegant and
1566
unsympathetic drafting. The business of simply superimposing one Bill on a previous Act is messy; it is very inconsiderate as regards those who have to read it at this stage, and even more so for those who have to apply it.
The only excuse for this kind of clumsy legislation is that the Government have in mind an early consolidation Bill. As I always believe the best of everyone and credit people with the most noble intentions, I sought the advice of the Public Bill Office on the present situation regarding consolidation measures. I was told that there is but one consolidation Bill—the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—awaiting consideration by the Joint Committee. I understand that no further consolidation Bills are likely to be introduced in the near future, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am quite wrong in that respect.
I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Renton has just entered the Chamber. He has a longterm interest in the clarity—or rather the obscurity—of legislation. I should very much like the Minister to tell me whether he considers that the provisions in this police Bill are fit and proper measures for consolidation. I hope that he will at least agree that everyone would benefit from such consolidation. If the noble Lord accepts that that would be a most reasonable and intelligent course to pursue, perhaps he can tell the Committee whether there is any reason why it should not be pursued. It seems to me that the cause of consolidation has been allowed to go by default, with its merits and the need for it being almost forgotten. I trust that the Minister will not take this as a frivolous complaint.
In the interests of those who have to try to understand the contents of the statute book, it is important to limit as far as possible the number of different Acts that are placed upon it. If the noble Lord agrees with me, that will prevent me being tiresome and repeating my plea throughout the passage of the Bill. As I said, this kind of drafting is messy; it is inconvenient; it should be avoided whenever possible; and, in any event, it should be remedied by consolidation at a very early stage.
Lord Hylton: Clause 1 deals with a national policing plan which, by its very nature, raises issues of principle. We all know that organised crime these days often operates nationally. We also know that criminals do not restrict their activities to one police area; indeed, they may escape from one and move into another. Moreover, we are aware that terrorism may be considered a "national threat". Nevertheless, is it not inescapable that a national policing plan will have to be a very broad-brush matter?
When one considers the huge differences in the problems that occur as between rural areas and urban areas and even between inner-city areas and suburbs, it is hard to see how much positive content a national policing plan will be able to contain. How, for example, does one weigh up the relative importance of controlling the trading, supply and flow of drugs in relation to the deplorable and hateful trafficking in

1567
women and children? These are imponderables and must vary very much from time to time. In his reply, will the Minister give us a bit more information on what will go into a national policing plan?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Peyton on the need for consolidation. I think that, if one accepts that there is need for further legislation, this method of drafting is perhaps not quite as inconvenient as my noble friend said, as practitioners and those who have recourse to the current law will find that the statutes are set out with the amendments incorporated. However. it would make for very considerable ease if the legislation were put together in a consolidated Bill. Although such Bills can take much of the draftsmen's time, they do not take much time in Parliament. I once carried a consolidation Bill of 726 clauses in, I think, seven minutes.
Lord Rooker: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in so far as I am able—I am not one of the business managers—I intend to ensure that the Bill is passed in a considered and mature manner, after tranquil debate. I also hope that, when we are able, we suitably improve the legislation. I shall certainly make it my business to make good use of the gaps that we shall have between the stages. Noble Lords should therefore receive no surprises about the Government's view on what has been said in Committee. I think that it would be much better for our consideration on Report if advance warning were given. If that entails holding some joint meetings or one-to-ones, I shall be happy to do so. I shall endeavour to operate such a process.
I am and have always been a fan of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but I am even more so now. Once, in the other place, I almost had my legs chopped off for suggesting that Parliament should take a year off from passing new legislation to put right and bring together the great body of law that we had already passed hut was a mystery even to practitioners—although it should not have been, because the practitioners have to serve the great British public. Ultimately, we are here to serve the public. Consequently, I am a great believer in consolidation. However, I do not know about any plans for such legislation.
I should say that extensive extracts of the Police Act 1996 as amended by the Bill are available in the Library. Noble Lords can therefore see how the Act will be amended.
Lord Waddington: Why has the Minister changed his mind? Does he not still think that it would be a good idea to have a holiday from legislation?
Lord Rooker: I am not in charge. However, I think that the way in which we legislate is crazy, inefficient and a mystery to the public, although we legislate on behalf of the public. Legislation is not necessarily intended only for the cognoscenti. Finance lawyers get away with building one Act on another—the Finance
1568
Acts are consolidated annually, as a matter of course, for the convenience of the UK taxation industry—although that service is not provided in relation to other legislation. I shall therefore certainly make it my business to ask whether there are any plans for consolidated police legislation. Nevertheless, as I said, we have put that information in the Library for noble Lords. I regret that I did not mention that earlier.
As for the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, I cannot list the national policing plan's contents or go beyond what is stated in the White Paper—which is a little more detailed than the legislation. I should, however, say a little about the plan's purpose. Currently, there is no single document in which the Government are able to state their priorities, performance indicators and plans for new development. Police authorities and chief officers have a plan for coming years on the basis of various requirements set out in different places at different times without necessarily having a clear sense of the Government's intended direction for the police service. The national policing plan is intended to fill that gap.
The national policing plan will provide an overarching strategy within which the local force and basic command unit area plans can be prepared. We also hope that it will give the police a sense of direction and coherence. It will supply a framework at national level for continuous improvement and the achievement of strategic policing priorities and objectives. As such, it will be a mechanism to help minimise variation in performance. As the Home Secretary has said, one of his biggest concerns is the variation in performance between various police forces. However, that is not to say that we are seeking to create a national police force, as that is not our intention in the legislation. Nevertheless, we want to use the plan as a basis for consultation on proposals for regulations and codes of practice. The plan will, of course, not interfere with the operational independence of chief officers.
If we can provide the same information about all police forces—there are currently 43—and authorities at the same time and in the same format, it will certainly be beneficial to Ministers who are subject to parliamentary Questions. Ultimately, the blame lies with Ministers—that is our bit of the tripartite arrangement; the other bits are the money and the power. It will help if we have that information in one place. As the debates continue, we can further elucidate the content. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not be able to see the bigger picture until the first plan is published.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to say how grateful I am—ingratitude would be very churlish in these circumstances— to the Minister for his accurate and elegant description of our legislative methods. He has earned everyone's gratitude for that, and I am most grateful to him.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Codes of practice for chief officers]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert, "but not at intervals of less than 12 months"
The noble Lord said: The temptation to use verbiage is not confined exclusively to the matter of legislation but can appear also in regulation and, as we see in Clause 2, codes of practice. Whitehall's temptation to use verbiage all too often creates considerable administrative difficulty for those who are on the receiving end.
I recall that the education service came pretty close to mental collapse because of the plethora of education Bills that Whitehall has insisted on passing with monotonous regularity. It was not exclusively one political party that brought about that situation. Schools were just beginning to deal with the consequences of one education Bill, and all the consequent guidance issued by Whitehall, when Parliament concluded passage of the next one. Before schools had even started to discover whether one Act worked, another came along to change everything. The situation with codes of practice can be precisely the same.
It is perfectly true that Clause 2 finishes with the kind words that the chief officer of police, who will receive these codes of practice,
"shall have regard to the code".
However, depending on how a code of practice is drafted, a "request" to have regard to it can become a requirement.
Amendment No. 12 may seem small and trivial, but it is simply an attempt to try to produce a little bit of procedural stability. It requires that if a code of practice is to be revised—there will be consultation on the revision in due course—it should not be revised at intervals of less than 12 months. That measure seeks simply to make life at the coal face a little more straightforward and easier for practitioners.
It is a simple and straightforward matter. I hope that the Minister will co-operate on it even if he does not accept the detail of the amendment. Such an assurance would go a long way to help those who are responsible for the administration of these services at the local level—that is, chief officers—to work more smoothly as they would know that if a revised code of practice were issued they would have time to put it in place and see whether it worked before the next one was issued. That is an important point. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend who has moved the amendment. I also support the other two amendments with which it is grouped. There is a theory on the part of some people that a code of practice—
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but Amendment No. 12 is not grouped with any other amendment.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged. I am sorry. We are talking about Amendment No. 15, are we not?
Noble Lords: Amendment No. 12.
Lord Renton: I must apologise to the Committee. I have been out of the Chamber and I thought that I had picked up where we were, but I have not.
Lord Dholakia: We on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Our aim is simply that the codes of practice we are discussing should conform to those which are issued for police authorities generally. We are now discussing codes of practice for chief officers. The consultation process that the Home Office has in mind would probably take longer than 12 months. However, there are a number of issues here which we need to identify. A good code of practice will need to bed down and its effectiveness will have to he monitored before anyone proposes any revision of it. I believe that 12 months is probably the minimum period of time that should elapse before such an exercise is undertaken. As we argued earlier, it is sensible to introduce an adequate time-scale. It would be a tragedy to tinker with revision before a code of practice had had time to settle down. Will the Minister say why a code of practice would need to be revised before 12 months had elapsed? Where does all this lead? Where does the ultimate accountability of a chief officer lie under such codes of practice? Does it lie with the police authority or with the Home Secretary?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we do not plan to issue codes of practice in under 12 months. That is the whole point of the drafting of the clause; there is no specific time-scale. If a code of practice had been issued on, for example, equipment, and it was known to be out of date, it would not be efficient for chief police officers to be required to use a code of practice that was known to be out of date and for the law to prevent our updating it because we were stuck with some 12-month rule or some other time limitation. It is necessary to be reasonably flexible.
However, it is not the intention to shower police officers with codes of practice on a monthly basis or to impose change for change's sake. Each code of practice has to be subjected to a test before it is introduced. It is unreasonable for the Committee to proceed on the assumption that we would without good reason issue and reissue codes of practice on the same subject at intervals of less than 12 months. However, if an issue of good practice needs to be revised, surely it is important that we can revise it so that chief officers are not working with information and codes of practice, to which they are required to have regard, which everyone knows are out of date. I believe that any reasonable person would consider such a situation to be grossly unfair on them.
As I say, we do not intend to issue or reissue codes of practice at intervals of less than 12 months or at intervals of 12 months. The clause does not specify a

1571
time-scale. For the reasons I have given, it would be had practice to restrict the Bill's flexibility in the way that is proposed. To do so would put at risk the attempts of chief officers to be more efficient and more effective. They would rightly complain if, for example, they had to apply a code of practice that was known to he out of date simply because Parliament had tied the hands of the Home Secretary in terms of updating it.
Lord Waddington: The Minister has given a clear exposition of the situation. I can well understand that one has to cater for the situation where a code of practice has to be brought up to date to take account of new legislation. Perhaps that is the proper answer to the concerns which were expressed by my noble friend. However, surely it is possible to devise an amendment to provide that a code of practice should not be superseded in less than 12 months unless it is necessary to issue a new code of practice to take account of new legislation.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord replies to that point. I have a difficulty with the language of the Bill which emerges when we start to try to amend it. I do not know what the term "revise" means. Does it mean beginning to consult, drafting or publishing? Plainly, it may he necessary to start the process of revision by means of consultation and drafting in less than 12 months in order to bring out a revised edition in 12 months. If that imprecision is of importance in any respect, it might be as well for the Government to consider the relevant subsection between now and Report to determine whether some more accurate term could be used. In the mean time, I commend to the Minister the practice in certain commands of the Metropolitan Police with regard to the smoking of cannabis. It is always possible to turn a blind eye to a hit of a code of practice which is not up to date.
Lord Rooker: I do not think that that is good practice. There are enough lawyers outside who would like to make a "buck" to ensure that that would not happen.
Perhaps I have given an inadequate explanation of the matter. There is a trigger here. I draw the Committee's attention to subsection (3) of new Section 39A. When the Home Secretary wants to issue or revise a code of' practice under subsection (3), he must first require the Central Police Training and Development Authority to prepare a draft. The board of the authority has only just been appointed and was announced yesterday, 27th February. It consists of independent members, ACPO members and police authority members. Those people will be involved in the drafting. I genuinely believe that if the ACPO members, the police authority members and the independent members—that is a necessary mix—were asked constantly to revise the same code within some ridiculous time-scale, they would draw the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary before they proceeded with the drafting, which is their responsibility.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has given a helpful response. However, one has to weave one's way through it to a certain extent, if one may put it that way.
I have always accepted that the Central Police Training and Development Authority will be involved in any change. However, that authority will do what it is told. It might complain about that, but that is what it will do—that is what its job will be. A rather unfortunate situation could develop.
The Minister said that it is not his intention to keep churning out codes of practice, and I have every faith that that is the case. I am not sure that I can envisage a circumstance that would require such an urgent change of police practice—that cannot take place anyway because of the procedure that is necessary before a new code of practice is introduced—that meant that one was likely to want to revise a code of practice in less than 12 months. I therefore have some difficulty with the Minister's response, but I shall study it with care. His intention is correct, although I do not agree with all of the detail. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Before issuing any code of practice under this section or revising the whole or any part of such a code the Secretary of State shall consult—
(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities in England and Wales; and
(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police of forces maintained by those authorities."
The noble Lord said: The question of a code of practice for chief officers—such codes are contained in Clause 2—touches on earlier discussions and on the extent to which the Minister's commitments about furthering consultation under Clause 1 also apply to this clause. The amendment, and Amendments Nos. 71 and 73, would insert the requirement also to consult the police authority or the service authority.
It is essential to reinforce the tripartite structure arid not to go directly from the Home Secretary to chief officers; that involves bypassing en route the police authority and service authority. I hope that there will not be many such codes of practice. They form one of three legs—the others are strategic guidance and non-statutory guidance. I presume that the codes of practice will mainly be about operational policing, which is an area into which we should tread with great caution. Is the Minister prepared to accept the amendments or at least to consider them in light of the replies that he has already given in relation to Clause 1? I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am not sure why my Amendment No. 14 should be sandwiched between the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. His amendments are related to each other but mine is rather different. I am of course very happy to be associated in any way with the noble Lord. I am again

1573
concerned about the question of consultation. My amendment relates to proposed new paragraph (4), which states:
"Before preparing a draft code of practice under this section … the Central Police Training and Development Authority shall consult with such persons as it thinks fit".
I am sure that that authority is absolutely full to the gills with intelligence and perception and wants only to be fair. Nevertheless, one must always bear in mind the possibility of failure in human affairs. The possibility that worries me is that the authority may not consider it appropriate—indeed, the Home Secretary does not always consider it appropriate—to consult chief officers.
Lord Rooker: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I seek to improve further the detail of his speech. The board of the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which I mentioned earlier, has two ACPO members: Jane Stichbury, the chief constable of Dorset police, and Peter Loughborough, the director of training and development at the Metropolitan Police, who I am sure is known to the noble Lord.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not know Peter Loughborough personally but I certainly know of him. My point is that it would be good to have a written requirement. If the Minister is satisfied that those two very important people will always take it upon themselves to ensure that the views of chief officers are known and understood, I should be satisfied.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support the principle that my noble friend has enunciated. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the Central Police Training and Development Authority will consult fairly thoroughly before preparing a draft or revised draft code of practice? We have on numerous occasions debated from these Dispatch Boxes whether one should list all of the people who should properly be consulted. I will be relaxed on the point if the Minister gives the assurance that, in drafting any code or revised code, the intention is that consultation will be wide and thorough.
Lord Elton: I am not sure that I am as easily satisfied as my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke to an amendment that struck earlier in the process. The Minister can of course point to the consultation that will be carried out on his behalf by the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which may or may not be fortified in the way in which my noble friend suggested. The point is that however much it consults, it has to consult on a draft that it has prepared that,
"must contain all such matters as the Secretary of State may specify".
Surely, however, consultations are needed before that list is produced and before such matters are included in the code of practice. We return to where we were in Clause I, and I request the Minister to be as open to
1574
suggestions as he was previously. I hope that he is open to the idea that the Secretary of State himself should consult before he sets the relevant matters in a form in which they cannot be excluded by the authority after consultation.
Lord Rooker: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that for the avoidance of further doubt a relevant press release is available in the Library. I do not want to list all of the people but there are also two members of the Association of Police Authorities on the new board. There was a Home Office board, but that is no longer the case. I refer to the vice-chairman of the Wiltshire Police Authority and the chairman of the Northamptonshire Police Authority. I completely deny the suggestion that there are not quality people around to ensure that a good job is done. There is also a list of independent members which contains people of worth.
I am prepared to look at the matter before Report—I have no problem with doing so—in order to concrete the matter in position, as it were. We genuinely want to consider the views of noble Lords. There is no question whatever of drafting codes of practice without consulting chief officers of police. I cannot spell that out more clearly. My right honourable friend John Denham, the Minister responsible for crime reduction, policing and community safety, made that clear in his letter of 3rd December to the president of ACPO, Sir David Phillips. I shall put on the record just one paragraph from that letter. My right honourable friend said:
"ACPO will be involved with the formation of the drafting groups and will be at the heart of the drafting process. The Home Secretary will commission [the Central Police Training and Development Authority board] because we wish to combine consistency of approach with the flexibility to cover diverse areas of policy. ACPO are formally represented in [the Central Police Training and Development Authority board] and your operational expertise, as well as the need for professional support, will mean that it would be profoundly against anyone's interests for ACPO to be 'frozen out'. The White Paper makes it clear that ACPO will be centrally involved in the drafting group and we will be happy to give a commitment to that effect in committee".
I cannot make the matter any clearer. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances, but I am more than happy to reflect on what has been said before we reach the Report stage.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord is not going to withdraw the amendment immediately, perhaps I may add a footnote to that very welcome comment by the Minister. I have always believed that declarations by one government of what they intend to do under legislation which they pass have absolutely no force when another government come into power. Therefore, such declarations have a limited life.
Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may say that we are not gunning for the Minister but we are gunning for posterity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any code of practice, and any revision of a code of practice, issued by him under this section."
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in the interests of consistency. Section 39 of the 1996 Act provides that any code of practice that the Secretary of State issues to a police authority or police authorities, and, indeed, revisions of those codes of practice, should be laid before Parliament. Clause 2 of the Bill makes no requirement that codes of practice relating to chief officers should, I believe properly, also be laid before Parliament.
We live in an age of communication, of open information and of trying to keep everyone informed about what is going on and how things are working. Indeed, this afternoon the Minister has made a number of gentle speeches aimed precisely at that point. Therefore, we believe that the amendment is entirely appropriate and we should like to see it included in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 74, which are grouped with Amendment No. 15, seek to apply the same condition to codes of practice in relation to NCIS and the National Crime Squad.
We do not consider this to be an unreasonable request and we hope very much that the Minister will find that he can concede to it without too much difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend, and perhaps on rather wider grounds—not only on that of consistency with the earlier Act but out of a desire to approach the whole provision for codes of practice with some caution. I believe that that caution is warranted because of the supreme importance of maintaining the doctrine of operational independence for chief officers.
I know that it is not intended by the Minister or by the Government as a whole that the codes will be other than helpful and applied within the discretion of chief officers without trenching on the doctrine that I have described. However, the point is that they may well he, and the revision of a code or the code itself may well be, phrased in terms which go beyond the proper limit.
My noble friend pointed out helpfully that the earlier statute requires a code to be laid before Parliament. I believe that I am right in saying that it is normal practice, and has been for many years now, for a code of this importance to be laid before Parliament. This code, however it is expressed, is likely to have some legislative effect. For some codes, that is provided for specifically—the Highway Code is an obvious example under the Road Traffic Act. But I believe that the noble Lord could confirm that there are codes in employment law which have legislative effect by reason of the doctrine of judicial review and the wide ambit that courts will look at when asked to review judicially a decision that has been taken by whichever officer or official is concerned.
1576
We do not say that this code will be without legislative effect. One can foresee circumstances in which it will have some legislative effect and will, therefore, have to be taken into account by the judiciary. Therefore, I believe that this code should, on grounds rather more wide than those of consistency— important though that is—be laid before Parliament so that Parliament can, preferably by the affirmative procedure, decide whether or not to support it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I also rise to support the amendment. I point out that new Section 39A, which is to be added to Section 39, is in the strange position of not requiring that which Section 39 requires. The codes of practice to be issued by the Secretary of State to police authorities under Section 39 are required to be laid before Parliament. But these codes, which in many ways and for various reasons are of even more importance, are not.
I add to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, that new Section 39A(5) states,
"in discharging any function to which a code of practice under t his section relates, a chief officer of police shall have regard to the code".
That has all kinds of statutory and legal implications of the gravest importance to the chief officers of police concerned and, of course, to police authorities and to the wider society. Not only do I see no reason why this code should not be laid before Parliament; I see every reason why it should, in particular as we on these Benches, and I suspect Members of the Committee on the Benches parallel, consider this to be a serious dislocation of the tripartite arrangements. Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister will take the matter back and review the position.
Lord Rooker: I have listened to what noble Lords have said but I believe that they may be wrong. I hope that I shall be able to explain why I consider that it would be a bad idea for the amendment to be accepted. Essentially the codes of practice will be technical documents covering what can sometimes be complex areas of operational policing matters. That is one reason why the Bill provides for a strong professional input in the drafting of the codes, as we discussed in our debate a short while ago. The people involved in drafting the code will be at the sharp end in the profession. Obviously they will need to put together operational experts in the areas covered by a code. There will, in any event, be wide consultation.
However, I emphasise that they will be technical documents. In many instances they will relate to areas of policing which it would be wholly counterproductive to have in the public domain. There could be examples, such as setting out the best methods of the police in respect of crime prevention and detection, where it would be better that they were not put in the public domain.
I am conscious of the seductiveness of the amendment, so earlier today I checked on manuals that are not necessarily in the public domain. A couple of examples have been given to me and I believe that

1577
I put one in the letter that I wrote to noble Lords. One is the ACPO firearms manual. Part one is on the website. Part two is not in the public domain for reasons that are obvious. It contains information relating to police tactics in interception, intrusion and covert surveillance. That is not in the public domain. However, guidance from the independent surveillance commissioners is in the public domain. So matters are separated. There are areas where to put it all in the public domain would be counter-productive.
At present when Her Majesty's Inspectorate inspects part of the police service—for example, the Special Branch—it does not necessarily put everything in its report into the public domain. These codes of practice deal with an area where it would be well outside the competence of parliamentarians to have an input, so I do not believe that it would be productive from the point of view of the police to have the amendment in the Bill.
Lord Elton: Before the Minister leaves that point, can he tell the Committee, why, if there is already machinery for issuing what is, in effect, guidance in what is called a manual that the police have to follow, it is necessary to have this procedure vitiated? Perhaps I am not making myself clear. The Minister has said that there is already machinery issued by the Home Office by which instruction, in one form or another, can be given to police officers on how to behave, without it coming into the public domain. Why is it necessary to import such matters into this process, with the result that this process cannot be transparent? Why can they not stay in the process that he has just described, and leave these matters transparent?
Lord Rooker: In giving those examples I do not believe that I have just described a process. I have simply given a couple of examples of manuals or good practice documents that in the normal course of events relate to police work. Some of them are in the public domain and some are not; some parts of some are in the public domain and other parts are not. We envisage that the codes of practice referred to here will be of a technical nature and will relate to operational matters. In regard to their drafting, I refer back to the board of the new Central Police Training and Development Authority and the expertise that that body will provide.
I have not described a system. It is true that there will be a system that follows the Bill because the new board will be set up, but I also draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph nine of the letter that I wrote to noble Lords. I said:
"A case in point would be the core elements of the National Intelligence Model where it is essential that all forces adopt the same methods for collecting, recording and sharing intelligence in order to deal effectively with cross-border crime".
One would not necessarily want such codes of practice.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This is not a technical point, but new Section 39A(1) states:
"If the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for the purpose of promoting the efficiency and effectiveness generally of the police forces … he may issue codes of practice".
I invite the Minister to respond to this point. If it could cover technical matters, it could also cover matters of the most general importance with regard to policing. Does he concede that?
Lord Rooker: It could do, but the end of the subsection relates to,
"the discharge of their functions by the chief officers".
I do not have an analysis of that, but the subsection says,
"promoting the efficiency and effectiveness".
We are considering crime reduction, fighting crime and variations in performance. I am happy to look at the wording, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I do not believe that there is anything untoward about it. It hangs together because it relates to codes of practice relating to the words in the final part of the subsection.
I have probably misled the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There is non-statutory guidance. There is a process already for manuals and guidance, but the Bill requires the chief officer to have regard to the codes. It is part of the reform process and noble Lords have recognised that there is a stronger obligation than is attached to non-statutory guidance and manuals. There is no question that there is a stronger obligation here. I do not argue that what we propose in this clause is exactly the same as what has gone before. However, I believe that the appointment of the new board and the role that it will play in ensuring that the codes are drafted is best for ensuring our protection.
I also point out to the Committee—I do not hide behind this, but it is not an unimportant point—that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform did not make any comment on this part of the Bill. I have warned my elders and betters in the other place that the writ of that committee is important in this Chamber. Indeed, we have already tabled amendments in relation to advice given by that committee, but it makes no comment on this part of the Bill.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I ask the Minister to reconsider the thrust of his reply. Can he explain why some of these matters are too sensitive to be capable of being laid before Parliament? Why does that not apply to the codes of practice and the provisions of Section 39A to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has drawn attention? That is widely expressed. It says that the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the exercise and performance by chief officers of police of their powers and duties under this chapter. At the moment the Government appear to be saying that because in some conceivable circumstances some of

1579
these matters may be sensitive, therefore, none of the codes shall be brought before Parliament for specific approval. The Minister may want to reconsider that.
Lord Rooker: The debates do not end with the Committee stage. I cannot give any commitments in relation to this matter. We have listened to what has been said. I accept the point that the codes of practice will be technical documents, covering complex areas of operational policing. I cannot hide behind that, because clearly some of them may be important. In no way, shape or form would any reasonable person argue that that needed to be kept out of the public domain. As I do not have a list of the potential areas of codes of practice, I am unable to elucidate further.
One fair point that was raised is that the codes of practice of tine police authorities cannot be equated to the codes of practice of chief constables. I did not make that clear, but I know that one noble Lord raised that point. The police authorities are not involved in operational policing. They deal with the financial management. The police authorities do not deal with operationally sensitive matters. That is where I would draw the line. Following the comments of noble Lords, and without any commitment, I am happy to have this matter looked at again.
Lord Dholakia: Before the Minister sits down, I was just looking at the paper from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. It says that the power is likely to be used in areas of operational policing where specific concerns arise. The Minister said during Second Reading that the Secretary of State had no intention of using any powers to affect operational matters. So this directly contradicts what was said during Second Reading.
Can the Minister say precisely what the code of practice is about? Is it about operational matters? If so, we must go hack to the drawing board. If not, we need a better explanation.
Lord Renton: In considering this matter further, it may help the Minister to bear in mind that, though many years ago codes of practice were considered never to be part of the law, in more modern times they have become part of the law without actually being secondary legislation. They become part of the law because a breach of the provisions contained in them can give rise to legal action. It is only fair therefore to those who may perhaps be placed in a vulnerable position if such a breach occurs, that codes of practice he given as much prominence as possible.
Admittedly, if it were secondary legislation it would have to be laid before Parliament. But in view of the legal implications and the interest which Parliament has a right to take in these matters, it would surely be much more sensible and fair to lay the codes of practice before Parliament.
Lord Rooker: I take the point about the history or codes of practice made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It has been self-evident over the past two or three decades that in a whole range of activities codes
1580
of practice have taken on greater importance simply because of the court cases that have arisen around them.
I cannot respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. For some reason I do not have the Delegated Powers Committee paper in my Box—I thought I kept everything. But I make it clear that this is not interference with the operational activities and responsibilities of chief officers. The two matters are not related and I do not see a contradiction. However, given the nature of the debate I am happy to have a look at this issue again just so we can get clarity. But I make that point without any commitment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are now in some difficulty. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden raised a fundamental point when he raised the issue of the need to protect the operational integrity of our police forces. The Minister clearly indicated that from time to time codes of practice, under this section, may well be codes of practice which relate to operational matters. A clear problem arises when those two statements are looked at in simple opposition. I found the Minister's response disappointing when he came to explain that already some codes of practice on the operational front are not in the public domain. Under this amendment, codes of practice properly should be in the public domain.
I do not have a great deal of difficulty with the procedure with which the police agree; that is, voluntary codes of practice on operational matters which are not in the public domain. It would be wholly remarkable if that situation did not exist. But that is not what the Bill says. I accept too that it is necessary to make a distinction between codes of practice for police authorities and codes of practice for chief constables or the commissioner as the case may be. There is a distinction between the matters which may be dealt with by one group on the one hand, and the matters which may be dealt with by another group on the other.
The Minister however said just enough to persuade me that we should not divide on this amendment at this stage. I am grateful to him for that. It is vitally important for Parliament to be sure that the operational integrity of the police force can be maintained.
Lord Waddington: I do not want to protract the debate. Could my noble friend add to the matters he raised for consideration by the Minister the whole question as to whether codes of practice are the right vehicle by which the Secretary of State should give advice to police officers on sensitive issues? He has said that that is the difficulty for him. But one wonders whether sensitive matters should be included in codes of practice or whether there should be some other vehicle by which that advice or instruction should be given. That is the real point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My noble friend raises another aspect of what is a very difficult matter. But we have had a useful debate.
Lord Rooker: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, for which I shall be grateful because it will stop me from rising again. If the codes of practice existed in isolation, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would be a fair one. But I draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the long letter I wrote to them recently and in particular to one sentence in paragraph 8:
"The white paper set out a three-tiered approach; regulations, binding in law; codes of practice, to which chief officers must have regard, but which are open to variation for good reasons; and guidance which is purely advisory (much of which will continue to be non-statutory)".
In other words, the codes of practice are not the be all and end all; they are not the only vehicle.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Unfortunately I have too much experience of codes of practice in another area. I certainly recall 150 pages of one code of practice which was a statutory code of practice with which local authorities had to comply. The administrative cost of that to each and every authority was horrendous. Any of my local authority colleagues who are present today will remember the specimen to which I refer.
However, the Minister has said just enough to persuade me not to divide on this matter. I shall study his response with great care. I shall study with even more care the response he makes when we reach the next stage of the Bill. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a number of interesting debates around this issue. It is a matter of fact that codes of practice are seen increasingly in administration. But as a matter of principle, because they are legislation by the back door—they do not get direct parliamentary supervision in the sense that regulations do—we ought to be extremely wary as to how they are handled.
It was for that reason that I tabled Amendment No. 15. At the moment we are in a situation where the question of whether or not this clause is satisfactory is what I can only describe as "pending". I suppose we shall have to be satisfied with that. I shall therefore curb my impatience and withdraw my objection.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But there are two matters of concern to these Benches. The first relates to the whole process of consultation. The Minister has made it fairly clear which parties will be involved in the process. We are asking the Minister whether those bodies could be included on the face of the Bill as part of the consultation process so that there will be no confusion about how the code is arrived at.
1582
No one is taking away the central role of the Central Police Training and Development Authority. It will obviously be consulted on the matter. But the CPTDA is very much a strategic body. Is this a suitable role for it? Will it not simply become bogged down in considering, line by line, draft regulations and codes?
The other matter of concern is the matter which we have just discussed. I refer the Minister again to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Paragraph 3 on page 7 states:
"The power is likely to be used in areas of operational policing where particular concerns have arisen (for example, investigation of murder or paedophiles)".
This is a direct reference to interference with operational matters. It would be very helpful if, before the Report stage, the Minister could identify clearly what are the operational matters in which the Home Office still has an interest.
A further matter concerns me. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made an important point that rather than certain information being made public, there must be other ways in which it could be held. Perhaps I may give an example. If there was a death because of the use of firearms by the police, and the police followed the code of practice, would the court of law be able to ask for that code of practice to be produced? If it is produced, should it not become a public document? There is confusion and there is interference in policing operational matters. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify some of those points before the Report stage, because I am sure that we shall all return at that stage with further amendments on the matter.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support this proposal. In this regard there has been no concrete reason advanced for increasing the powers of the Home Secretary. We have not had one single practical example of where it is necessary to take these very considerable powers to the Home Secretary. Frankly, unless there are convincing examples of where policing is—as we sit here—being impeded and made less effective because of the absence of this power to impose a code of conduct, then I, for one, hope that these Benches will vote against it when the time comes. The Minister has made clear his own support of what is called the "tripartite arrangement". As we heard at Second Reading, it is a crucially important balancing of powers between the state, localities and chiefs of police. Any substantial interference with it must be justified, not in abstract, but in practical terms.
I add that surely in this House—I do not suppose that it is any different down the way—we have abundant examples of a massive accretion of secondary legislation, and now codes, which all have the best intentions on earth, but which seem to end up very often—for example, in health and education—choking the very organs that they seek to vivify and make more effective.
I am a sceptic about the power that is being taken by this clause. I think that there will be a terrible tendency on the part of a Home Secretary who is being berated by an often ignorant press to say, "Well, I am about to

1583
issue a new code of conduct". As has been mentioned by Members of the Committee, this is not a code of conduct that is merely advisory, it has legal statutory effect. Chief constables will have to have regard to it. Without prolonging what is a profoundly important constitutional issue, I should like to support strongly the Question that this part of the Bill is removed.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may add a brief contribution. So far we have been discussing this clause only in the context of its application to chief constables. The Bill makes it clear that it applies also to the directors-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and of the National Crime Squad. One only has to mention that to see how particular and specific this code could be in operational matters—as the Minister has confirmed, it will amount to more than guidance— and how close those codes could be to really specific operational matters. That gives added force in my mind to the arguments that have been pressed on the noble Lord.
Lord Rooker: I probably must take some blame in respect of a misunderstanding by Members of the Committee on the question of operational matters as opposed to operational policing. I am not playing with words. As I have said, the codes will cover aspects of operational policing. We have not made any secret about that. They will help to spread good practice; for example, in tackling robbery and street crime and in the management of the force, perhaps with an effective occupational health system. That is operational policing. That is not interference with how chief officers put their own policies into practice in terms of operational decisions. Therefore, there is a distinction.
I shall give one example. On 7th February, Sir David Phillips from ACPO, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. Sir David had voiced some concerns about how the codes would be constructed. In terms of the construction of the codes, I have made it absolutely clear on three groups of amendments how operational police officers—ACPO—will be involved, through the new board, in the process from beginning to end. In terms of how the codes are constructed, we meet the concerns 100 per cent. Sir David said to the committee:
"I can see the virtue in there being codes of practice around, for example, intelligence issues because if we are to have an intelligence system we have got to be able to share information. That means that it has to be collected against the same standards of probity and against the same criteria for recording everywhere, so you need to have a common system. Having the Home Secretary's approval of a code seems to me to be a sound idea".
There is no scintilla of questioning there of interference in operational decisions of the police. The codes are about operational policing, which I believe is something quite different.
Lord Elton: What the noble Lord quoted was approval by the Secretary of State for a code of practice. This is a code of practice that the Secretary of State himself would have generated. Surely, that is not the same thing at all.
Lord Rooker: No; I do not accept that. It will be put together and drafted by a professional body of frontline officers, with a board that includes independents and members of police authorities as well as serving police officers.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may indulge in a slight diversion for a moment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for reopening the discussion when I was about to close it. In opposing the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, I neglected to tell the Committee that Amendment No. 70 is also in the group. The reason that it is grouped with this particular clause stand part debate is simple: it is consequential on it. If we were to reject Clause 2, Amendment No. 70 would automatically come into play. I apologise to the Committee for not previously mentioning that.
We could continue the debate for some time.
The difficulty that we all have is that if the codes of practice are not put before Parliament, we will not know whether they are interfering with operational matters. Parliament is entitled to know that. The point made by my noble friend Lord Elton is important. There is a distinction between codes of practice drafted at the request of the Home Secretary because he thinks that there is a particular problem and codes of practice developed in the operational field by practitioners, in which, in effect, they are sharing best practice to ensure that the whole policing system works in the best possible operational way across the country. That distinction is valid.
If we wish, we can continue nit-picking around that subject for some time but the Minister has given us an assurance that he will consider the matter. Our little secondary debate has reinforced the need for him to do so. I hope that, when we return to the matter, we vvill hear some second or even third thoughts.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers to require inspection and report]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 40, after "time" insert, "if he has reason to believe that the inspectors of constabulary have failed to comply with their obligations under this section in that respect,"
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns what is a small matter in some ways but important in others. Clause 3 states:
"The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors of constabulary to carry out an inspection under this section of … a police force … the National Crime Squad",
and so on. It is a matter of practice that police forces are regularly inspected. That is as it should be. Indeed. it is not unknown for police inspectors to appear at a force and get stuck in almost without notice. They can just turn up.
The purpose of the amendment is to constrain the Secretary of State's power to where he feels that the inspectors are not properly fulfilling their duty. That is not an unreasonable constraint. I should not say this, but I have in mind the words of a former chief fire officer who was probably one of the best fire officers

1585
in the country. His attitude to inspectors was that they saw what he wanted them to see, even if they arrived on the doorstep with no notice.
We are concerned not with what a reasonable Secretary of State would do but the power that the wording of the clause may give to someone who is unreasonable if the Bill remains on the statute book for a considerable time, as one hopes that it will. None of us can predict the possible shifts in political opinion in that event. Too often in my experience Parliament has not given sufficient consideration to the future in the drafting of legislation. Sometimes the subsequent consequences—several years later—have been unfortunate and painful. We have tabled the amendment because we want to avoid that. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: May I speak in opposition to the amendment? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has, with others, given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I ask the noble Lord's forgiveness for anticipating him, but presumably he will then deploy arguments that there may be no circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be justified in requiring inspectors to carry out an inspection.
But the logic of the amendment is that the noble Lord accepts that there may be some circumstances in which it would be justified for the Home Secretary to require inspectors to carry out an inspection. The noble Lord wants to hobble the Home Secretary, if I may put it that way, by providing that he would need to have,
"reason to believe that the inspectors … have failed to comply with their obligations".
That strikes me—I hope that I am legally correct on this point—as requiring an objective test. If the amendment were accepted, the Home Secretary would be subject to judicial review if he ever sought to exercise the power under the clause. He would have objectively to demonstrate that he had met the condition in the amendment. That would unduly restrict the Home Secretary. If there is ever any justification for the Home Secretary to require inspectors to perform an inspection—and sometimes there must be—the amendment ought not to be passed.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has brought forward the question of clause stand part, I should like to ask a simple question. If Mr Blunkett were today to say to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary that he felt that it would be a good thing if a police force X were to be inspected and particular attention paid to its firearms section, would it not do so? Is not the provision entirely unnecessary?
Lord Bradshaw: I would seek to explain to the Committee that there are several types of inspection. There is a general inspection of the force, which takes some time and is very thorough. There are one-day
1586
special inspections, which we in Thames Valley have just had, which take the general pulse of the force through a number of tests and determine whether a general inspection should take place. There are thematic inspections, carried out by the chief inspector of, for example, roads policing. Latterly, we have had basic command unit inspections, where inspectors visit a police area and look at what is going on in great detail.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I believe that the provision is totally unnecessary. Police forces are inspected very thoroughly, very often. Inspectors well know who are the weak links in the chain. I do not know this for certain, but I am sure that they are in fairly close touch with the Secretary of State and his advisers. The Secretary of State does not need this power and it should be struck out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had to say. As ever on such matters, he spoke with great wisdom. Of course he is right to be suspicious of the intention behind any legislation. We are right to give the Bill the sort of careful scrutiny that we are this afternoon. The clause is no different from any other in that respect.
It is worth reflecting on what the clause is attempting to achieve and the effect of the amendment. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to require HMIC to carry out an ad hoc inspection of a force, part of a force or particular functions carried out by that force. The duty as it stands in the 1996 Act is to inspect and report on the whole of every force. HM IC could have fulfilled its duty in that respect but without necessarily providing the evidence to spot shortcomings in a particular part, function or exercise of that force. For the purposes of issuing directions to forces under the new Section 41A of the 1996 Act, inserted by Clause 5, that power is useful in considering the particular remedial measures required.
The amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others said, would restrict the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could call upon HMIC to carry out an inspection of a force or any part of a force to occasions on which he considered that HMIC had failed in its duty under Section 54 of the 1996 Act to inspect and report on all forces. That would be difficult to demonstrate if in fact HMIC had inspected and reported on the efficiency and effectiveness of all forces.
The duty under Section 54 is to inspect all forces—the whole force in each case. That must be understood. However, the inspectorate will not necessarily have failed in its duty under that section if more information is required regarding the performance of a particular part of a force or a particular function of a force. The amendment, as the noble Lord said, would restrict the Home Secretary's ability to seek detailed information on a particular part. There is already a power in Section 93 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to require an inspection of the Central Police Training

1587
and Development Authority. Clause 3 would also replace a power in Section 40 of the Police Act 1996 to commission a special inspection of a force.
We think it right that the Home Secretary should be able to seek that more detailed information. It would be helpful in the generality of things; inspectorate reports exist to assist the force that is being inspected to improve the service that it offers and the way in which it performs. In a sense, that is what we are trying to do here. We want to provide extra flexibility and enable the provision of support from the centre when it is required.
Lord Waddington: Is it not fanciful to suggest that the inspectors would refuse to carry out any sort of inspection that they were asked to carry out by the Secretary of State? Can the Minister assert that there has ever been a case in which HMIC has failed to carry out such an inspection?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I defer to the noble Lord's greater knowledge about such matters. He has experience of high office, and I am sure that he is right. However, we are seeking to put on the statute book something that may, in particular circumstances, be of use and assistance and will enable an inspection to be gone over in greater detail to elucidate and draw out more than was drawn out in the first place. It will enable the Secretary of State to do that. The noble Lord makes a good point, and he will reflect carefully on the points made in the debate.
Lord Waddington: I can see that it does not go to the amendment; it goes to the substance of the subsection. Other noble Lords have cast doubt on whether it was necessary at all. I concede that it does not go to the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further elucidation. It was most helpful.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an interesting debate, but it causes me some concern. The amendment dealt simply with the principle of when the inspections could happen and whether the Secretary of State should have the power to whistle one up on the wind, so to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is correct in the sense that, if we take the clause out, it does not matter how or whether we amend it. On the other hand, there is no certainty that we will want to take the clause out. If we are satisfied with the content of the clause, we might be prepared to leave it in.
I am not sure that what we propose would be an unreasonable restriction. We come to the issue of part inspections, which the Minister mentioned, in the next group of amendments. The question relates to what would be practised by reasonable people. I am appalled by the idea that, six months after an inspection, the Secretary of State could wake up and say, "Oops! We want a bit more information on this or that", and that, therefore, there should be another inspection. It would appal every practising police officer in the country. If the Secretary of State wants
1588
further information, he can request it, for Heaven's sake. He need only write a letter. He does not need an inspection to get further information.
I am not happy about the response to the amendment. None the less, we have had a useful discussion, and I hope that the Minister will do as his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is doing and study what has been said. They are important matters. We must ensure that we do not restrict or contain reasonable reform, while preserving the absolute operational integrity of the force. All the amendments form part of an attempt to make sure that that is what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 4.
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 are aimed at the same thing, namely inspections of part of a force. As was pointed out to me, it could get so ridiculous—it never would, of course—as to go as far down as an inspection of a headquarters canteen. I am sure that, if that were necessary, any competent chief constable would have dealt with it a long time before. However, it goes into more difficult areas such as the firearms team, which has already been mentioned, and the traffic team.
There are two amendments, Nos. 18 and 21, which applies the same qualification to NCIS. In leaving out those lines, we would simply require the Government to consider carefully the proposals for the political power to influence the inspection process by demanding more inspections. That is the concern that lies behind the amendments. It is a proper concern and one that we need to look at with considerable care.
I do not think that I need to say any more on this. I do not know whether once again I shall tempt the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to his feet. but I accept the point that he made. However, we shall come to the greater issue in a few minutes. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I had not intended to speak on this amendment and I shall make only a few brief remarks. Having listened to what has been said, in particular with regard to the last group of amendments, I think that the matter is more important than I had considered to begin with.
I can see that if one is a chief officer, to have an inspection foisted upon one is a very considerable pain. It is expensive and distracts one from other matters. Furthermore, it represents something that one would probably like to avoid if one could. I am not persuaded by the arguments. Perhaps the Minister could direct our attention to any need for this power that was expressed and then recorded in the White Paper. If so then I am afraid that I have forgotten about it.
One is enormously tantalised by the presence in the Chamber of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who has been present throughout our debates. It may be that

1589
we are talking absolute nonsense and he would be able to tell us that that is the case. However, as laymen we are doing our best. I can see a considerable potential danger here if the Home Secretary can hold out a threat over a chief officer or perhaps the director-general of the crime squad that he will order an inspection that will not prove to be a particularly pleasant experience.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Condon, will be able to confirm my impression that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary keeps its ear close to the ground. It has a very professional and experienced ear and I suggest that not much can escape it. Why do we need this? Am I speaking unrealistically when I say that I foresee that there is here the real danger of possible abuse?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, I can understand the nervousness and expressions of concern over this. However, perhaps noble Lords opposite are making more of it than is necessary.
The proposition that we are seeking to put into legislative effect is simple enough. A whole force does not need to be ineffective or inefficient for it not to be providing the best possible service. Particular parts of the force may be under-performing. I believe that a basic command unit was mentioned earlier, which provides an adequate example. The whole force may be under-performing, but only in relation to one function such as perhaps, say, the gathering and handling of intelligence material.
We would argue that in those circumstances it would be a waste of the resources of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to invite it to carry out an inspection of the whole force, if we are aware of a problem only in one geographical area or one particular part of a force. We all know that the inspection of an entire force takes much longer and would be of less use as a means of analysing and taking apart a specific problem so that a solution in all of the best supportive terms can be found.
The Home Secretary already has a power to require Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to conduct an inspection of a whole force. The purpose of Clause 3 is to provide a far more flexible and responsive power to look at particular parts of a force. It is no more and no less than that.
While I can appreciate the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, surely all our collective experience of the work of the inspectorate is that it will operate in an entirely cooperative, helpful and supportive way with local police forces the length and breadth of the country. That is exactly what we are seeking to facilitate. The clause helps to further refine that process so that inspections can focus on a particular difficulty that may in some way be disabling to the whole of a force, undermining its effectiveness and efficient operation. As I have said, it is no more and no less than that.
Lord Condon: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, invited me to comment on this, which I hope
1590
may be of some assistance to noble Lords. I believe that my former colleagues would probably perceive this clause as being unnecessary but they would not in any way feel threatened by it. In a sense, they would probably see it as unnecessary because there is sufficient collaborative endeavour between all those involved or mentioned in the provision so that most inspections will go ahead in a collaborative way. If there is a dispute and if therefore this is seen as a failsafe new provision which will give the Home Secretary of the day the final power of arbitration as to whether there should be an inspection. I still do not think that my former colleagues will feel severely threatened because the establishment of the facts and the truth would be in the interests of all concerned.
As I have said, they may perceive this provision as unnecessary, but I do not believe that they would feel threatened by it.
Lord Elton: I am partially reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, but I still feel like Alice in Wonderland. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which, if a Home Secretary were to ask for an inspection of a part of a force, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary would refuse to do it. It may be necessary for the inspectorate to be given statutory powers to carry out an inspection, but it already has those.
I think that this provision is a symptom of the sickness of the age—the legislative sickness that keeps us at work in this building month after month, year after year, until we all drop dead or are evicted by statutory instrument. I speak entirely for myself.
It is not necessary to have a law to do this any more than it is necessary to have a law to say that the headmaster of Loughborough Grammar School shall be obeyed when he states that the sixth form shall study history on Tuesday week. There are some things that can be done without the law. If something can be done without the law, then it can be done without the lawyers, thus making it quicker and cheaper.
Lord Bradshaw: The nature of inspection has changed considerably. A great deal can be achieved on one-day inspections or through very tightly drawn thematic inspections. Inspectors do not come in and spend a great deal of time going through the force. I believe that the inspectors have very much moved with the times.
Perhaps I may also say that a police force does not become inefficient overnight. It is a process and I am quite certain that the inspectors know which are the least efficient forces and which need the most inspections without any advice from the Home Secretary. I maintain that this is totally unnecessary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should make one further point that is worth putting forward at this stage. Noble Lords have commented that this provision is unnecessary and that we are producing too much legislation—a point made most ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the clause is not entirely new. We have been here before. I do not seek

1591
to make a smart point, but I refer to Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which was not enacted under our watch. That section already allows for special inspections and was originally introduced under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.
What we are seeking to achieve here is refinement and greater flexibility. I am sure that noble Lords should be able to accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, eloquently made the point that this is a helpful part of what we are trying to achieve in terms of raising standards within the service.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, does lie accept that there is a one-way ratchet. on all these things? Every single time it pushes more power to the centre and more power to the Home Secretary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not accept that we live in a ratchet world. There are swings and there are roundabouts that is, things go one way and come back the other way. As with most of this legislation, the provision is a statement of our intention to do all we can to support local police forces in improving the quality of their service operationally so that they can do the things that we all want them to do: feel collars and put people behind bars when they have offended. We want to make sure that forces work well towards those ends and objectives. That is why we have the police service that we have in this country.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may briefly respond to the Minister. He said that this is a matter of swings and roundabouts. Can he cite one example in this huge Bill of powers flowing back to the police authorities?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord scores a good point. I shall not go through the Bill line by line here, nor go through the swings and roundabouts—we are not in that game—but the noble Lord makes a good point.
Lord Waddington: The noble Lord, Lord Condon, is more than able to speak for himself, but he never said that this clause was helpful. He said that it was unnecessary but that the police would not feel threatened by it. He never said that it was helpful.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am sure that the Minister will reflect on this issue. When he does so, will he remember the principle of human life that when people are given powers they tend to use them. In the case of government, it is not inconceivable that a particular chief constable or a particular director general will get up the nose of some diligent official, who may then put it to the Secretary of State that it might be a good thing to direct an investigation. The Secretary of State, who perhaps has five boxes to deal with that night, may very well decide to take that
1592
advice and make use of it. That is something which occurs in ordinary life. I hope that the Minister will reflect upon it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We always reflect carefully on what is said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I would not want to see—I am sure that that would not be the intention of any government—the powers used in the arbitrary way suggested by the noble and learned Lord. We shall carefully listen and also watch how these powers are used in the future. We shall at all times reflect on the way they operate.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a useful discussion. I recall listing at Second Reading many of the existing powers that the Government have under the 1996 Act. The improvements—if that is what is claimed for the additional powers that the Government are taking in the Bill—are, in some ways, marginal. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is right to describe them as a one-way ratchet.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, made perhaps the most significant remark when he said that the powers are unnecessary. At the same time he said that they were unthreatening. We are in the business of passing good legislation, but here we may be in the business of passing unnecessary legislation. Whether it is good or bad legislation ceases to be relevant if it is unnecessary.
The Ministers, who are sitting together on this issue, have heard the debate. In a sense, the critical issues relate to the question of whether the clause should stand part. We have twice been round the field and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Lord said: I return, very briefly hut without apology, to the horrid habit of squeezing two statutes together—that is, an Act of Parliament already on the statute book and a Bill which the Government hope will get there.
I intend to read out the two lines that my amendment seeks to leave out in order that avid and enthusiastic readers of Hansard should not miss these gems. I invite the Committee's particular attention to lines 7 and 8, where we find these words:
"and in section 55(1) of that Act (publication of reports) for 'or (2A)' there shall be substituted', (2A) or (2C)'.".
It is not immediately easy to grasp the meaning of that ugliness. I hope that on Report the Minister will at least make some comments on this hideous practice.
Let me inflict some further pain on the Committee. The same comment can be made in respect of lines 20 and 21, which state:
"and in section 42(1) of that Act (publication of reports) for 'or (3)' there shall be substituted',(3) or (3B)'.".
You can hardly beat that for gibberish. It is rather disgraceful that we have to tolerate such rubbish.
If the Minister can say something about how this Bill could be cleansed of garbage, it would be helpful. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I were in charge of cleansing legislation of garbage, I would probably be indulging in a fairly lengthy job. I am not going to start today in your Lordships' House, but I am sure some things could be improved and dusted down.
The irony of the noble Lord's amendment is that it probably adds to the sense of gibberish about which he is so concerned. If we were to adopt it, we would effectively prevent the Secretary of State from requiring a report to be published. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's intention.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister has misunderstood me. I am not asking the Government to withdraw meaning from this part of the Bill. I am asking them not to mutilate it and not to conceal it. The whole point of making laws is that they should be capable of being understood without undue effort.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is being mischievously suggested to me that we should set up a special working group and task force on consolidation. I am not sure that that would take us much further forward.
The noble Lord makes an important point—that is, that in legislation we should say what we mean and mean what we say and ensure that the language expresses that clearly and in straightforward terms. We have listened to the noble Lord's point, but if we were to go along with the terms of the amendment it would make a nonsense of what we are attempting to achieve—that is, openness and transparency.
Lord Elton: I hope the suggestion that we should have a task force on consolidation was not mischievous. It would be highly constructive and welcome.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I understood quite clearly that I would get nowhere today with this cause. That does not mean to say that I shall not pursue it from time to time. But, for the moment at any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, leave out line 14.
The noble Lord said: I have to confess that Amendment No. 20 is a result of complete ignorance. On page 2, at the beginning of Clause 3 the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors of constabulary to carry out an inspection under this section of … the National Criminal Intelligence Service".
I was somewhat fascinated to find on page 3, under subsection (2):
"(3A) The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors to carry out an inspection under this section of … the National Criminal Intelligence Service".
As I understood it, the National Criminal Intelligence Service is an integrated national organisation with a director. Its position has been further clarified and under the Bill it will be freestanding. Am Ito understand that there is a National Criminal Intelligence Service Mark 2 in Northern Ireland? If there is not, I am somewhat puzzled as to why, under the Bill, we need to have the organisation inspected twice.
This is a probing amendment. I am not making a frightfully serious point, but there may be something behind it that I have completely missed. There very often is, and if there is I should like to know. If there is not, perhaps the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is a helpful probe. I think that I can make the situation clear to the noble Lord: NCIS does, as he suggests, operate as a coherent whole; but NCIS operations in Northern Ireland are currently inspected by HMIC appointed as the inspector for Northern Ireland. To cover inspection of NCIS under Clause 3, both the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 and the Police Act 1996 need to be amended.
Acceptance of the amendment would mean that NCIS operations in Northern Ireland would be the only part of the police service not covered by the clause. Thereby, we should create an anomaly. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to do that. We need to have a coherent and consistent approach. I hope that that elucidates the point and clarifies the reasons why the clause is drafted in this way. Perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I must say that I find the Minister's explanation interesting when he says, "If we do this, we might create an anomaly". But it seems to me that we have got ourselves into a situation where we may need to have this set out twice in order to avoid an anomaly.
That leads me into the school of thought of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, as regards the clarity of legislation. I cannot believe that the operations undertaken by NCIS in Northern Ireland would not be inspected, as and when necessary, as suggested by the inspectors, whether or not they are Northern Ireland inspectors. I find it difficult to believe that the inspectors in Northern Ireland are a separate organisation from those operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the implication of what has been said.
None the less, I should not want to create an unnecessary anomaly—particularly if it caused Ministers on the Front Bench opposite concern that they had allowed such a thing to happen. But I cannot

1595
say that I am satisfied with the noble Lord's answer, which I shall study. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a great deal of detailed discussion in relation to this clause. I admit that our debate has not convinced me that the clause contains matters so fundamental and creates a situation so fundamentally new that it ought to remain in the Bill.
We are required to look at these matters on balance. In the light of our debates, my request to Ministers is that they should, if they can, justify the existence of the clause. The 1996 Act already contains the power to require inspections. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says that this is a matter of evolution and that the provision is required to smooth and develop the process—that was the impression he gave even if those are not the words he used—but despite that, it is my view that we are on a "ratchet".
We must also consider the use that might be made of a clause such as this by unreasonable people. I am not wholly satisfied that the absolute need for this clause has been explained. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say by way of justification. I oppose the Question.
Lord Bradshaw: I add the weight of our view on these Benches to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The powers that are sought are totally unnecessary. They were included in legislation by a previous Conservative Home Secretary, and they were probably unnecessary then. This piece of the legislation should be jettisoned.
Lord Waddington: Not a jot of evidence has been produced to suggest that it is necessary to give the Secretary of State power to require the inspectors to carry out an inspection. The only expert evidence has come from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who made absolutely plain his view that the clause is unnecessary. That is my view. The Minister has not suggested one instance where the inspectorate has failed to carry out an inspection when asked to do by the Home Secretary. Surely, unnecessary law is bad law. Unless the noble Lord can produce a convincing argument that it is necessary to give the Home Secretary this new power, we should mark our displeasure at this unnecessary provision by voting against the clause remaining in the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a useful series of debates on this clause. The discussion has been helpful. I have learnt a considerable amount and have heard some interesting opinions expressed. I cannot say that I agree entirely with those opinions. Noble Lords opposite are possibly putting the
1596
argument too strongly. After all, we embarked on this course not under our watch but under a previous government.
Clause 3 simply seeks to broaden the Secretary of State's power to require inspections of forces by HMIC by allowing him to limit the requirement to a particular part of the force or to particular functions. That is about being flexible and proportionate in relation to a problem that may have been identified.
The clause also broadens the power so that an inspection can be commissioned at any time rather than, as is currently the case under Section 40(1) of the Police Act 1996, at any time but only in the context of giving directions to police authorities after adverse reports. Both changes are useful in the context of the provision to issue directions where a force or a part of a force is failing to provide an efficient or effective service.
One point should be clearly understood. The Home Secretary will want to have clear evidence of under-performance before using the powers under Clause 5 of the Bill. Much has been made of the point that perhaps in the future there may be in office those who will use the powers arbitrarily or unreasonably. I do not believe that these powers will be used in an arbitrary way.
At present—and rightly so—decisions on these matters are informed by reports from 1-IM IC, which in turn draws up a range of indicators in assessing police performance. In the future, in developing performance measurement systems, we shall ensure that these are as comprehensive and balanced as possible, and we shall aim to measure police work in key areas and successful policing in the round.
It has to be the case that any system of measurement will depend on being able to obtain up-to-date and accurate information. That is the basis of good reporting. The new national crime recording standard that will be adopted by forces from April will help to ensure that crime data are accurate and consistent so that those assessments and measurements can be properly made. Although the Secretary of State may obtain that evidence from elsewhere—for example, from the Police Standards Unit or possibly from the Audit Commission—this provision will allow him to apply the expert knowledge of the inspectorate to the examination of performance levels where necessary.
The provision to require inspection of only part of a force or only of particular functions seems to us to be an entirely sensible addition. As I said earlier, there is no point in inspecting the entire force when the under-performance appears to be limited to only one area. It is worth emphasising that, from the point of view of the public, the most significant policing is that which is done at the local level. Providing a power useful in efforts to facilitate bringing the performance of all forces up to the level of the best seems a sensible way forward. If we cannot examine and rectify problems at the local level, we shall miss and fail to address key issues of under-performance. Action would then have to be taken further down the road when the whole force is starting to suffer.

1597
The provisions will apply to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. As we argued earlier, there is a similar power introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the Home Secretary at any time to call upon HMIC to inspect the Central Police Training and Development Authority. HMIC already conducts inspections of basic command units as opposed to a whole force. We are not breaking, therefore, any new ground with the clause. We simply say that it provides us with a sound legislative base from which we can perform these duties properly and ensure that in future those important, helpful and supportive inspections are undertaken in the right atmosphere.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friends have referred to a ratchet. The Minister drew our attention usefully to an aspect of the ratchet. The 1996 power—this power elaborates upon it—required there to be an adverse report on a police force before the Secretary of State could make the order for an inspection. That is not in the proposed new section. The Secretary of State can act of his own motives. Everything that my noble friends said about the ratchet process is right. The question of why it is necessary to legislate when the Secretary of State can make a perfectly civil request and have the work done is not addressed.
Because the noble and learned Lord is now on the Bench, I say again that having no law is cheaper than having law because one does not have lawyers.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister sat down, I was going to ask him to take account of that very point. No evidence has been produced as to any shortcoming of the inspectorate in the exercise of its powerto investigate anything when asked to do so. I hope that when we return to this on Report—I am sure that we shall—the noble Lord will be able to point us to any evidence of such shortcoming, if there is any; or perhaps he will have to say that there is none.
Will he take account also of this matter. Since the power applies to Northern Ireland, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it is the dearest ambition of the IRA to secure the destruction of Special Branch of the police service there? With this power to require such action of an inspectorate which does not consider an inspection limited to Special Branch to be necessary—nevertheless it is a requirement—comes a potential danger. This is because such an inspection may be considered to form part of the peace process, to the great operational disadvantage of the police service in Northern Ireland as a whole.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The balance sheet is stacking up—and against the Government rather than for them. It is well known and established in this House that under the existing regime the inspection service does a good and thorough job. It keeps its ear to the ground. If it gets a hint of problems developing, it has the power to deal with those matters if necessary.
1598
Inspections of parts of a force can be performed under the existing remit. My concern about inspections of part of a force is that one must recognise that no basic command unit (BCU) in a force is a freestanding enterprise. Those units are heavily reliant on a swathe of essential central policing services provided usually from the police headquarters. I refer, for example, to firearms, finger printing, criminal investigations or data processing. An inspection of a BCU inevitably imposes burdens on the core of that police force.
We have heard many reasons why the Bill would be better without the clause. We have not heard many which convince me that it is a better Bill with the clause. I suspect that noble Lords would like a break rather than a walk. I shall not press the issue.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these short draft amending regulations make two changes to the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001 which came into force on 2nd April last year following approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The first proposed amendment addresses an anomaly in the principal regulations made last year. The effect of the amendment is to make clear that it is possible for a local authority to hold an all-postal referendum in combination with an election that is also being held on an all-postal basis. It will, of course, continue to be the case that an all-postal referendum may not be combined with an election held using the traditional polling station method.
The second change proposed is the opening up of these referendums to the full scope of the electoral innovation pilot schemes provided for in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The electoral pilot provisions were not originally extended to referendums because there had been no referendums of this type yet held so there would have been nothing for a referendum pilot to be properly assessed against. We have subsequently seen a succession of mayoral

1599
referendums. The Government believe, therefore, that the time is right to open up the full scheme allowing local authorities to apply for pilots using innovations other than all-postal balloting. In line with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2000 we have consulted the Electoral Commission. It has expressed its support for the policy that would he given effect by the draft.
Finally, I should like to place formally on record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to write to me and, I suspect, other opposition Members about the regulations. It was courteous to do so, and I am grateful.
I have no objection to the amendments. However, it is disappointing to note the results from the all-postal votes on the mayoral referendum. The turn-out of voters has not increased. Considering that people are sitting in the comfort of their own homes, the average turn-out has been about 26 per cent. In the two electoral results where people were required to go to the polls, the figures were 10 and 13 per cent—so 26 per cent is double those figures. It does not look as though the changes to voting arrangements are having the desired effect.
Even with referendums on what was meant to be the exciting issue of elected mayors, the turn-out for elections, particularly for local government, has not increased as we would all have liked. It is sad when people do not take the opportunity to vote. If more effort is required to get them to do so, clearly we have no objection.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister not just for introducing the regulations. but for writing to me about them. Sometimes such regulations can be a little opaque without the gloss that is provided for us. Of course we support the regulations. How could we oppose making voting easier? However, when I read the Minister's letter I felt that the measures were more about encouraging a greater number of people to vote on schemes for which there has been so little enthusiasm with regard to the "modernisation" of local government.
Having said that and noting the disappointingly low turn-out for all the referendums so far, which all of us, as politicians, must feel ashamed about, we support the regulations.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from both Front Benches. I share the disappointment that has been expressed about the turn-out. We all realise that such measures help, but perhaps there are more fundamental questions relating to why people do not vote in elections that need to be addressed as well.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Bingo and Other Gaming) Order 2002
7.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. the order before you is one of the last to come before Parliament under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It makes three modest changes to the law governing commercial bingo clubs.
The legal controls on commercial bingo are strict. Clubs operate on a membership basis under the licences that are issued by the courts in England and Wales and by the local authority licensing board in Scotland. They are strictly regulated by the Gaming Board, which approves the companies that own them and their senior staff. Commercial bingo is popular. There are more than 700 licensed clubs around the country. Between them they attract 250,000 customers every day.
The proposals in the order would not significantly change the way in which clubs operate. However, they would help clubs to respond to customer demand and a changing gambling market.
The three changes that the order makes would remove the need for clubs to notify their licensing authority of changes in their charges to players, allow them to offer their customers a greater variety of gaming machines and allow for more prizes in games of multiple bingo, otherwise known as the national bingo game. There will also be a minor benefit for casinos.
Paragraph 2 removes the part of the Gaining Act 1968 that requires clubs to inform their licensing authority of changes in their charges to players. That will not disadvantage anybody. It will save time and money for the bingo club and the licensing authority. The paragraph will also affect casinos, which can charge players for using their card rooms. Under the current rules they must notify changes in that charge to their licensing authority 14 days in advance. Again, there is no reason for that and nothing to be lost by removing the requirement.
Bingo clubs can have gaming machines for their customers to play, and most do so. Most clubs have AWP machines with a £25 top prize. They must agree the number of such machines that they can have with their licensing authority. The law also allows them to have jackpot machines with a £500 top prize instead, as long as they do not have more than four. However, clubs cannot have both types of machine. They can have £25 AWP machines or up to four £500 jackpot machines, but not both.
Paragraph 3 would change that. If bingo clubs wish, and if their licensing authority agrees, they will be able to have up to four £500 jackpot machines alongside £25 AWP machines. They will be able to mix the two types of machine. That does not mean that bingo clubs will turn into Las Vegas-style gambling dens. Clubs will still be playing bingo. It will not be a case of wall-to-wall machines. The Government see no case for the present ban on mixing the two types of machine in bingo clubs. It should be a matter between each club and its licensing authority. That will increase choice for players and the ability of the clubs to respond to customer demand.
Paragraph 4 makes a minor change to the law controlling multiple bingo—the so-called national bingo game. The Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985 allows for customers at bingo clubs throughout the country to play a single game at the same time to the same set of numbers. There is a single national top prize. The Act says that there must also be one regional prize in each region or one house prize in each club, or both. Paragraph 4 makes a simple change to that Act to allow the organisers to decide whether to give more than one prize in each category. It will be a matter for them. The change gives clubs more scope to meet consumer demand.
Last summer, the Government published the report of an independent review of the entire body of controls on gambling in Great Britain, including on bingo, which was chaired by Sir Alan Budd. The Government plan to announce shortly the steps that we will take in view of that report to carry out an overall reform of gambling law. Nothing in the order will prejudice or cut across whatever steps the Government or your Lordships' House might think necessary to bring about the reform of our gambling controls. The gambling review has specifically endorsed the mixing of £25 and £500 gaming machines in bingo clubs, which the order will bring about.
There has been extensive public consultation on the proposals and most careful scrutiny by the parliamentary deregulation and regulatory reform committees. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in your Lordships' House expressed no concerns about the order. The Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place expressed some concern about the provisions to allow bingo clubs to mix the two types of gaming machine. It commented on what it saw as the limited scope of consultation about the order by the Home Office with groups that might speak for the interests of elderly or vulnerable people. The committee suggested that the mix of machines proposal be dropped from the order.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport therefore undertook further consultation among those groups, which revealed no objection to the proposals. The order has now been approved in the other place in the form in which it is before your Lordships this
1602
evening. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended approval by this House. I confirm to the House that I am satisfied that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the bingo order, which one would think is one of the more interesting aspects of this ministerial brief. As the Select Committee of this House pointed out, the law on gaming is a mess, with layer upon layer of complexity having been added over the years. The Minister referred to the Budd report. We, too, look forward to the Government's response as soon as possible. We have the opportunity to debate some of those issues in the Chamber next week. I am satisfied that the order contains measures that would not pre-empt any matters that your Lordships might wish to debate when legislation based on the Budd report comes before the House.
The Minister referred to the mixture of amusement with prizes machines and jackpot machines. We are grateful to the Government for carrying out proper further consultation on the issue with those interested in the possible impact on those who are elderly and vulnerable. We agree that that consultation exercise satisfactorily showed that the provisions should remain part of the order.
I also notice that the Select Committee made it clear in paragraph 14 of its report that it doubts whether the risk to children is much increased by the proposed changes. That reassures me and we support the making of the order.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister gave a very full description of the thinking behind the order, which is to be welcomed. Noble Lords on these Benches find nothing objectionable in this order; and, indeed, we agree with most of its content. There was the initial sort of "sniff" of trouble as regards the idea of gaming machines and the issues that arise from and outwith this order. But, having flown that little flag of worry, shall we say, for a future date, I believe that the business in front of the House is certainly satisfactory.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the only member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee who is present in the Chamber this evening, perhaps I may add that the committee is very happy to see this proposal pass through the House.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the welcome for this order expressed from both Benches. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Restaurant Licensing Hours) Order 2002
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 24th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before the House is designed to permit genuine restaurants to serve alcohol with meals for an extra hour after the end of normal licensing hours without the need for what is known as a supper hour certificate. It was approved in another place on 14th February. I am able to assure the House that the order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The changes introduced by the order will not apply to premises that operate under a full on-licence, such as pubs. The licensees for those premises would still need to apply for a supper hour certificate, as at present. This is so that the justices can be satisfied that the extension of hours relates to the provision of a bona fide restaurant service and is not a way of circumventing normal closing hours.
Restaurant hours are constrained in the same way as other on-licences, like pubs and night-clubs, by the normal permitted opening hours. These are 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays; and noon to 10.30 p.m. on Sundays. However, restaurants that wish to serve alcohol with meals beyond those normal closing times may apply for a supper hour certificate that allows the restaurant to serve drinks until midnight on weekdays and until 11.30 p.m. on Sundays. Like other alcohol licensing approvals, it is granted by local licensing justices.
In the case of a restaurant with what is called a Part IV licence, the process is in practice one of rubber-stamping because the bona fides of the restaurant will already have been established by the same justices in granting a restaurant or residential and restaurant licence in the first place. The certificate must be granted by the justices if the restaurant is bona fide. I am sure that the House will recognise that this as one of the worst examples of red tape operating for the sake of red tape and that it imposes a wholly unreasonable burden on the restaurant trade. The restaurant industry estimates that the order will save the trade a modest £0.2 million per year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 24th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for her explanation. I shall be brief in my response. As always, I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as patron of the Restaurant Association of Great Britain. In my guise as spokesperson for culture, media and sport—and never as a spokesman for the association—I can certainly
1604
say that I welcome the proposed removal of unnecessary red tape; it is, indeed, a prime example of red tape.
The only blot on the landscape, so to speak, is the fact that when the matter was first considered in another place by the Select Committee it was thought necessary to remove part of the original order; na rnely, the provision regarding extended hours deregulation. It is disappointing to note that the committee and Members of another place could not come to an agreement on such matters, which remain contentious. As the licensing reform that we all await in this House seems to be ever receding on the horizon, it is even more important that issues such as extended hours deregulation should be quickly settled. However, we welcome the order.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall be even briefer than the noble Baroness, who has paved the way for what I have to say. This seems to me to be about an extra certification requirement for doing something that is fairly normal practice in many areas, so its removal is perfectly sensible. I agree with the noble Baroness as regards the idea of reform of licensing hours. Every time that that ship has appeared on the horizon, it seems that we have had to deal with business in other ports, for it disappears very rapidly from view. However, the order is a small step towards that goal. I urge the Minister to encourage people in her department to consider the example of Scotland, where the reform of licensing hours has actually led to much less, not more, bad behaviour.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support received for the order. I can tell the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the bigger reform of the licensing laws is very much on the Government's agenda. Of course, I cannot anticipate when parliamentary time will be made available for the purpose. It would not be right to say that such reform is receding more and more into the distant future—at least I very hope that that will not be the case. I commend to the House this sensible order designed to reduce red tape.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 to 8.36 p.m.]

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Directions to police authorities]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 30, leave out "the whole or any part of"
The noble Lord said: We return to an issue that we have debated for some time: whether this part of the Bill is necessary at all. If Clause 4 does anything, it amends Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which states:
"The Secretary of State may at any time require the inspectors of constabulary to carry out, for the purposes of this section, an inspection under section 54 of any police force maintained under section 2".
The distinction between the current situation and that pertaining when the 1996 Act was passed is that we have now established the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police force as a freestanding enterprise. One might have thought that, as those bodies were established on all fours with other authorities, the need to amend Section 40 has not changed. Section 40 continues:
"Where a report made to the Secretary of State … on an inspection carried out for the purposes of this section states

(a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the force inspected is not efficient or not effective, or

(b) that in his opinion, unless remedial measures are taken, the force will cease to be efficient or will cease to be effective,

the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".

We are therefore back in the business of debating an additional power. In this case, however, the proposal is to extend power so that a part of a force, as opposed to a whole force, can be inspected. Amendment No. 24 deals with a similar point. Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 all propose word deletions. The real purpose of this group of amendments, however, is to explore the possibility that we are legislating simply for the sake of legislating. The more I think about the matter, the more I believe that the Secretary of State is taking powers unto himself simply for the sake of doing so.
Clause 4, under the heading "Power to give directions to a police authority", states:
"Where a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection … states, in relation to any police force … or in relation to the metropolitan police force

(a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the whole or any part of the force inspected is … not efficient or not effective, or

(b) that, in that person's opinion, the whole or a part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective … unless remedial measures are taken

the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible … to take such measures as may be specified in the direction."

I had always understood that the purpose of an inspection was to see whether anything was wrong with the force. I also understood that, if he found fault, the inspector would report the matter not only to the Secretary of State but to the force in question, in the clear expectation that action would be taken to rectify identified faults. The clause says that the Secretary of State "may direct" the police authority, but he does not need to direct the police authority. That is the purpose for which inspections take place.
It seems to me that if this clause has any effect at all it calls into question the efficacy and the purpose of the existing inspectoral system. I do not think that that is
1606
a valid function as no one, so far as I am aware, has produced any evidence to suggest that the existing inspectoral system is not functioning in the way it should. My limited knowledge—I am prepared to admit that it is limited—is that police forces across the country are responsive to inspectors' reports.
We have tabled this group of amendments which seek to remove various words of the clause as we have considerable doubts with regard to the need for, and validity of, the clause, just as we had, and still have, doubts with regard to the need for, and validity of, Clause 3. We have tabled the amendments to explore the matter in more detail. I look forward to hearing the Committee's, and still more the Minister's, comments. I am singularly unconvinced by the content of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is important to get the matter on the record but I do not want to be repetitious as some of the points we shall discuss applied to the previous clause and will apply to the following clause. The noble Lord referred to existing powers in Section 40 of the Police Act 1996. Those powers mean that remedial action to correct under-performance can only be required once the whole force is considered to be failing to provide an efficient and effective service—either that or that the whole force is likely to cease to he efficient or effective.
That is an extremely high threshold. It is rather like the nuclear option which tends not to be used. Parts of a force—the basic command units or even particular neighbourhoods of a force area—can show signs of failing to provide the quality of service which their local communities have a right to expect. It is in the interests of providing consistently efficient and effective police services across England and Wales that we want to be able to identify and address localised under-performance as early as possible before the entire force suffers. That gives a degree of flexibility.
I said earlier that one of the greatest concerns of the Home Secretary—this must apply also to chief officers—is the incredible variation in performance across different forces. I give a couple of examples. I refer to burglaries of dwellings figures for 1990, 2000 and 2000–01. The best detection rate for such burglaries was 27.7 per cent; the worst was 5 per cent. That is a large variation. I refer to changes in the crime rate for burglaries of dwellings. The best figure showed a drop of 35 per cent; the worst showed an increase of almost 6 per cent. As I say, incredible variations exist. I am absolutely certain that one single factor will not account for that situation. The Home Secretary ought to be able to initiate targeted inspections.
As I said earlier, the tripartite system will remain as at present where one-third of the system has the money, one-third has the power and the Home Secretary gets all the blame because he stands at the court of public opinion in the House of Commons and is required to respond to all the minutiae of what might be wrong in the constituencies of various Members of

1607
Parliament. Such matters rarely concern an entire force. I remember just a couple of such cases in the almost three decades I spent in the other place. It is not only disruptive but also expensive for the inspectorate to inspect an entire force where under-performance is clearly confined to a certain geographical area.
I return to the rather long letter on Clauses 4 and 5 I sent to Members of the Committee. I refer to paragraphs 12 and 13. Clause 4 simply re-enacts with modifications existing powers. There is nothing new. We are not inventing the wheel here; it is not a case of oppression on the part of the Home Office. We have made the point repeatedly—it is worth putting on the record—that the intervention (if we can call it that) will only ever be carried out at chief officer level. It is absolutely crucial that chief officers are not undermined.
However, effective services may not be delivered and there may be clear variations between forces of which neighbouring forces are aware. Boundaries do not always run across fields. In some force areas they can also run up the middle of main roads. The Home Secretary is held to account in such situations. We seek a mechanism to enable the Home Secretary to be able to require remedial action to be taken—but not necessarily to lay down what it is—that does not comprise the nuclear option.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has mentioned my next point two or three times. He put it rather neatly. I believe that he said the power is in the hands of the police authorities, the money is in another place and the blame lumps on the shoulders of the poor old Home Secretary. Is not the problem here that if you go on saying that for long enough, people begin to believe it? The powers of the police authority are laid down under Section 6 of the 1996 Act; those of the chief constable under Section 10 and those of the Home Secretary under, I believe, Section 36. Clearly, the tripartite powers are spread between those three sections. If the Government and the Home Secretary in particular are attacked for matters that are not part of their remit, why on earth do they not say so? They do that often enough in other spheres. Saying, "The public are ignorant of that division of powers", or, "We have not told them", involves wholly unconvincing arguments for the further accretion of Home Office powers.
Lord Rooker: That is because the Home Secretary and I, for that matter, are a bit old fashioned in that respect. Our view is that where there is a success, the whole team gets the credit, and where there is a failure, we take the blame. That is accountability; that is the point. We are not seeking a mechanism that will allow the Home Secretary to go round blaming people; we want one that will bring solutions to problems without massive disruption. Massive disruption is involved in the current arrangement of having to go for a wholesale inspection. With the targeted use of the modification-existing power, we can assist the authority, the chief officer and the local community to
1608
bring about a solution. We are not looking for a mechanism that involves saying, "Oh no, they are to blame because they have the money and they spent it wrongly, or the chief officer managed the situation incorrectly". We are not in that game.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have given rather the wrong impression. I was not attacking the Minister's point about examining a specific act of policing; I was getting at the argument that he deployed, I believe, three times in different spheres.
Lord Rooker: That is how my right honourable friend David Blunkett sometimes expresses the matter when he is constantly told that he is wrecking the tripartite system. That is sometimes how it appears. There is a genuinely felt sense that a few more levers would not go amiss in terms of getting targeted work to deal with—this is one of the most disturbing matters—the incredible variation in performance across forces. I have already said that no one would argue that only one reason was involved.
We are therefore introducing a modified power. Indeed, to meet the earlier strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, this is in some ways a nice clear approach. We have removed an old provision and will replace it with new Section 40. One does not have to work out what the modifications are; it involves the whole or any part of the force. The fact that any part of the force is involved is pretty cruciall. I argue that the modifications are minor, but they are incredibly important in a practical sense. They will allow the clause to operate. In the current situation, one would hardly ever use such a power, because it involves the nuclear option. That is the great problem. We do not seek to be onerous. I believe that all sections of the police force, including chief officers and police authorities, support this modified power.
Lord Dholakia: I well understand the Minister's argument but I have a simple question for him. One obviously does not want to disrupt the whole police force on the basis that a particular area of the police has certain weaknesses. How would he reconcile the facts that in the Metropolitan Police a commander may carry out certain functions in relation to a London borough that may not be appropriate according to him or the inspector, yet the decision-making power is wasted in Scotland Yard at the centre? Unless one examines the total police force, one will not take a decision in relation to what is going on in, for example, Lambeth or Southwark.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord makes my point for me. I freely admit that I do not know London that well. It may be only particular areas—geographical rather than service areas—that need to be inspected. I referred to burglaries from dwellings in that regard. In that context, one would be talking not about the Metropolitan Police as a whole but about that targeted geographical area. That is surely less disruptive to the Metropolitan Police and a damn sight less expensive.

1609
It also means that one is more likely to take action than if the only alternative is to take such action in relation to the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force.
Lord Elton: Is the Minister actually seeking to persuade us—I should be very interested if he is—that hitherto and up to this point the Home Secretary has never before been able to arrange for a part of a police force to be inspected? I thought that we heard that inspections could already be thematic and specific. It bewilders me why the power is necessary.
Lord Rooker: I do not know the background, but I believe that this is the first time that the Home Secretary has been allowed to require the inspection to be done in that targeted fashion. That may have taken place at the choice of—probably—the inspectorate. I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question. My briefings suggest that requiring the inspectorate to carry out targeted inspections is a new power.
Lord Elton: The Minister makes my point for me. The Secretary of State has always been able to ask for that to be done, and it always has been done. What he currently does will be done with the force of law because he expects the inspectorate to disobey him if he makes a request. Have relations between the inspectorate and the Home Secretary deteriorated to the extent that it has to be judged to be criminally incompetent if it does not do what it is asked to do? What has changed to make the proposal necessary?
Lord Rooker: What has changed is that we are putting a package together for overall police reform to address our national problems, as identified in the White Paper. The Bill should not be a surprise; the issues were raised in some detail in the White Paper. The noble Lord says that in the past there have been co-operation and inquiries—some were targeted and some were more widespread. I am not sure about this and I have to be careful; such inquiries were probably not done in a targeted managed fashion in order to address the variations. I do not return to the 1996 legislation because these changes obviously transcend that. In relation to the measurement of performance and variations, access to such information was not then available; the information was not collected. We must appreciate that things have changed, particularly during the past decade.
Lord Bradshaw: I do not think that the Minister was present during our debate on the previous clause.
Lord Rooker: I heard about it.
Lord Bradshaw: Yes, the Minister has heard all about it. None the less, there are now BCU inspections of particular, discrete geographical areas. There are thematic inspections and one-day inspections, in which inspectors come in and take a snapshot of the force. All of that is done because the inspectorate targets it through best value performance indicators
1610
and other approaches with which it is closely involved. It should be able to pick out the weak spots in the force to direct its efforts to that area. I admit that some areas perform better than others. We are all charged in police authorities with getting resources in place and improving performance. However, I do not believe that these powers are necessary because I am sure that within the Home Office there are mechanisms for directing the inspectorate to the places that really matter.
Lord Waddington: I find it very difficult to make up my mind about the amendments without understanding the purpose and scope of the last few lines of the provision. It states:
"the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".
I know that this foreshadows amendments to come, but I should like guidance here and now about the scope of that provision. For example, can it include requiring the police authority or chief officer responsible to recruit a given number of community support officers? That is surely absolutely crucial. The words in that provision are wide enough to allow that to happen.
I believe that we know that only in the Metropolitan Police has there been any great support for the idea of having community support officers, and there is little support throughout the rest of the country. No doubt on plenty of occasions we shall hear the Minister say that we have nothing to worry about because in the provinces no one need recruit community support officers unless they want them. Under the terms of the Bill a chief officer certainly cannot be required to recruit community support officers.
However, I wonder how that can be reconciled with the plain wording of the last sentence or so of Clause 4. Read literally, that would seem to suggest that the Secretary of State could direct a police authority to get cracking and ensure that at least one-third of its force comprised community support officers.
9 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that that is not the case. There are no such powers in the Bill. The Home Secretary would not seek in any way, shape or form to order any force to make up a proportion of its members according to gender, ethnicity or whatever else. That is a management power of the chief officer, not of the Home Secretary. I was intending to respond further but I gather that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, wants to intervene.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I want to raise one point. I know that Amendment No. 28 is grouped separately, but, for my part, I should find it helpful if the noble Lord could give a hint or indication of how he would respond to it. If it were incorporated into the clause, it would set at rest the anxieties which have just been expressed by my noble friend Lord Waddington. It would provide at the end of line 38, page 3, of the Bill

1611
that the Secretary of State could direct the police authority only to take such measures as would, in the opinion of the person making the report, be necessary. That would narrow the field considerably, and I should have thought that it would do for the Government everything that they apparently see as necessary now. I do not want to anticipate that amendment, but if the noble Lord could give an indication of his response to that point it would be helpful to me.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The words which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has been talking about and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. has just referred are in the existing Section 40 in precisely the same language. The point that I wish to make, if I may be so bold, is that the 1996 Act went a very long way in the direction of Home Office control. That is why, frankly, we on these Benches need to be convinced beyond peradventure that any further powers are absolutely necessary and required by solid evidence.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may briefly jump the gun to one of the bullet points that my noble friend will probably use in responding to Amendment No. 28. We want to be in a position where the Home Secretary can go beyond the scope of the recommendations from the Inspector of Constabulary. That would allow him to take advice from other bodies, such as the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Audit Commission and the Police Standards Unit. He may disagree with the constabulary report for some reason and, therefore, it is a question relating to the person who would be accountable. The Home Secretary may want to go beyond the advice in an inspector's report because the Audit Commission and the Police Standards Unit are carrying out the functions and will report to the Home Secretary.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: This is becoming a little more serious because, under the provisions of the clause, the inspectorate is called upon to make the report as to whether or not the force in whole or in part will cease to be efficient or effective. Are matters now to be extended so that the Secretary of State can go far and wide and ask all kinds of other people who may have other matters in mind? If we are to have the mandatory provision, it should be limited to matters which are recommended by the inspector; otherwise—this is what I fear and I derive some support for this from what the Minister said earlier—we shall have the Secretary of State using the power to secure uniformity.
The noble Lord pointed out how certain forces have certain rates of success and other forces have others. In part, that derives from the exercise of democratic control in, for example, a particular county which has more attention paid to one facet of police activity than another. Therefore, if the Secretary of State is seeking to use the power in order to achieve uniformity, I believe that he is going much too far.
Lord Rooker: I disagree fundamentally with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to democratic control. He speaks as though it is up to the population which, he suggests, may get the police force that it deserves. In other words, if there are incredible variations between, say, neighbouring police forces which police the same make-up of population, then are we to say, "Well, that's tough;" to the population—to the council tax payers—"that is democratic control. You pays your money and takes your choice"?
We are not talking about local government services here; this is policing. There may be large variations but no one is arguing about uniform procedures. As we have said, we are not looking to create a national police force. We are not looking for what I might almost describe as "military precision" figures. We are not saying that every police force is the same on every indicator at which we look. There are incredible variations. One relates to violence against the person. The best change in the crime rate is minus 25 per cent; the worst change is plus 48 per cent. That represents an incredible variation between two forces. Those figures come from a survey of 30 comparable forces in urban areas.
Therefore, I do not accept that we must put the variations down to democratic control and that the public must simply lump it. Councillors from those areas will ask questions of their local authority and Members of Parliament will ask quest ions in the other place of the Home Secretary, who will be in a position to say, "I am sorry, there is nothing that I can do about it. This is part of democratic control". That is a totally unacceptable position and one in which the Home Secretary is not prepared to place himself. He wants to be able to make a change or pull the levers to make a change. I hope that I can assist Members of the Committee. We shall deal with Amendment No. 28 in more detail in due course.
Returning to the letter that I wrote, the point in paragraphs 12 and 13 is not unimportant. By their nature, these mechanisms for addressing under-performance are almost last-resort efforts because other things will have happened beforehand. By definition, if existing performance management and monitoring systems have failed to deliver essential improvements, and if other efforts have been tried and have failed, the Home Secretary needs to have an ability to intervene to require action to be taken to address the under-performance.
We have already said, as the White Paper states, that we shall agree a protocol with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities that will establish agreed procedures for the operation of this process. That brings in some safeguards—I say that in a positive sense rather than a negative one—to ensure that the shortcomings that are manifest in a force are addressed under the umbrella of the tripartite arrangement, so that ACPO and the APA are involved. Therefore, the Home Secretary is not on his own, pulling a lever, irrespective of what other people say.

1613
We shall agree a protocol for the use of these powers. When the variations are so large, I do not believe that we can simply say, "Sorry, tough, it is a democratic process; the country is not all the same; and you have to put up with it". To the best of my knowledge, we do not have a target for bringing them into a narrow band. Variations as great as we have are quite unacceptable and beyond existing management techniques. Therefore, some new techniques have to be tried.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I can ask the Minister to reflect on what he said. I believe that he said that the Minister may go beyond what the inspectors have recommended. That causes us considerable concern. Not only is it a matter of ignoring, or supplementing what the inspectors have reported, but decisions of that nature could often be political. I believe that there is a danger of the Home Office interfering, to that extent, beyond the measure. I hope that the Minister did not mean that.
Lord Borrie: I believe that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, have gone too far in their criticism of this clause. As I understand it, the Minister's power to give directions, which is the subject of the clause, is dependent on the inspectors having made a finding, either in full or in part, in relation to the force that it is inefficient or ineffective. If that is the limitation, which is clearly in the clause on the Home Secretary's powers, as it stands, surely it makes some sense to say that before the Home Secretary makes the directions he may want to take into account matters other than what the inspectors have said. But it is their basic finding of inefficiency or ineffectiveness that is essential before the Minister can make directions at all. That appears to me quite appropriate.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to the first line of Clause 5(1):
"The section applies where the Secretary of State (whether in consequence of a report under section 54 or otherwise) is satisfied".
I am afraid that his argument is torpedoed by the words "whether … or otherwise".
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I did not believe that we had arrived at the words "or otherwise" yet. I have a margin of sympathy with the Minister. I believe that we are in danger of becoming very hard on him, although with considerable good reason. Why I have a margin of sympathy concerns the development of computers, computer technology, computer information and, in this regard, computer management information, which increasingly is providing more and more detailed management information that simply did not exist five or 10 years ago.
1614
The Government's approach to the increasing development of knowledge—very useful knowledge—is that there appears to be a presumption in the way that the Bill is drafted that the local managers—in other words, the chief constable and his senior officers—who cannot take any pleasure in having a force at the bottom of the performance league, are to do nothing about it unless the Secretary of State orders a special inspection. What are we talking about? People are paid high salaries for their great experience and their great knowledge, particularly of local circumstances. They know the men; they know details of the community; they have all the information. Are we saying that they will sit on their hands and do nothing? The idea is inconceivable.
I know that the Minister said that if nothing happens then the Secretary of State needs a reserve power. But the Secretary of State has enormous powers of influence. He does not need this power to get something to happen locally. He can talk to his inspectors. He can talk to the police authority. He can talk to the chief constable. That is how things happened in the past when everything was not as it should be. It always produced results.
A different problem arises in this regard, and it is one we must face; that is, as we obtain this additional information and as forces, as they will, act on it and improve their performance, there will still always be forces that could be held to be under-performing. There always has to be a bottom quartile. One of the most futile targets I saw produced—I cannot remember by which government department—was one where it was said that the performance of the bottom quartile would be raised so that it matched the performance of the top quartile. Think about it! It might conceivably have been done, but all it would have achieved was to put the third quartile into the business of being the bottom quartile and I am not sure that that would have pleased anybody.
We need to be extremely careful when we pursue statistical norms. Over the years I have had to work with the Audit Commission on performance reports and so forth, as have many other Members of the Committee. We should not deny—I would not wish to—the immense utility of inspection and reporting systems, the Audit Commission reports and so forth. They are great tools for providing incentives to people on the ground to improve their performance. And they work. But to find in the psychology of the Bill the feeling that only the Secretary of State can make them work is infinitely depressing.
Once again we have had a long and interesting debate—I have taken more notes on this debate than on anything else we have tabled this evening. Both sides of the Committee need to think carefully about this issue. The amendments concern points of detail. But we are back in the business of deciding whether or not this Bill is necessary. There are ways for the Secretary of State to achieve everything he wants to achieve without this legislation. The powers already exist. They existed without the 1996 Act which, as the

1615
noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, in the opinion of some Members went too far, but I do not want to get into a debate about that.
Water has gone under the bridge. We need to recognise that. The question is whether we need to pour any more water after it. I do not believe that we do. At this stage I am prepared to withdraw the amendment so that we can all take a shower, cool off and think about the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 not moved.]
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 36, after "may" insert, "after consulting the police authority responsible for maintaining that force about the remedial measures needed."
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the last phrase of Clause 4, to NCIS and to the other police bodies. It takes effect only if we decide to have the inspections. If an inspection takes place, the amendment seeks that the police authority or the authority of the service concerned will be consulted about the remedial measures proposed.
When an inspection is made it is usual for the report to be seen in draft before it is finalised. I am quite sure that these one-day BCU inspections go through the same process, so that the report comes as no surprise when it is printed in final form and delivered to the officers concerned. In most cases the officers of the authority will have already taken measures to deal with any matters required to be dealt with. The police authority will have ensured that those matters have been followed up. Therefore, by the time they reach the Home Secretary the matters requiring attention would have received it.
I move the amendment on the assumption that the inspections take place and that the rest of Clause 4 is enacted. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the inspections are unnecessary because the mechanism to require them already exists by simply requesting the inspectors, without force of legislation, to carry out whatever the Home Secretary wishes. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although the noble Lord undoubtedly has a brief point of substance in his favour, I hope that he will not mind my pointing out that, if the amendment is accepted, the same phrase would be repeated twice in the clause as it would then become. Indeed there would be two references, one after the other, to,
"the police authority responsible for maintaining that force".
We really cannot have overlapping and tautology of that kind.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with the point well made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
1616
I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. It reminded me of my total failure to table an amendment to leave out altogether lines 36 to 38 in Clause 4. They state that,
"the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".
That is a fairly open menu of powers and opportunities for the Home Secretary.
I heard with some relief just now the noble Lord use these words. He said, "We are not looking for a national police force". That is exactly the reassurance that we on this side of the Committee need. However, when we see such words in the Bill which give fairly well carte blanche to the Home Secretary to direct the police authority, it revives our anxieties, even in the face of that friendly and welcome reassurance.
Perhaps I may encourage the Minister to go a little further so that he can relax us again, remove the tensions and the fear that—whether the Home Secretary intends it or not does not matter—this is leading in the direction of more centralisation, and with that centralisation comes, most naturally, detailed control over the whole police force in the country. These words represent to me quite an obstacle for the noble Lord to jump over. I hope that lie will.
Lord Rooker: I look forward with interest, before I go home tonight, to nipping into the Library to read Hansard on the Police Bill of 1996 to see what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said about the words, which are the same as in the 1996 Act. The words that he has identified at the end of the clause are not new; we are not introducing a modification.
That was a cheap little jibe at the noble Lord, for which I apologise profoundly. I shall give way to him.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I assure the noble Lord that had I been sufficiently alert—which I can never guarantee—in 1996, I should have said exactly the same thing, no matter where in this House I was sitting.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may continue, because I want to help the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Basically, I want to take his amendments away to consider them and return with proposals on Report. Is that okay? I do not want to repeat our debate, but I am not unsympathetic to the noble Lord's point. It would be tautologous to continue and I shall return to the matter on report.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may give him a little jibe in return. I have read the Second Reading debate on the 1996 Bill, and I hope that he will take note of what some of his Labour colleagues said then about the unnecessary accretion of power to the Home Office.
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert "and which, in the opinion of the person making the report, are necessary"
The noble Lord said: The amendment, which nearly got dragged into an earlier discussion, adds a few words to the end of the clause somewhat to focus the Secretary of State's power of direction. The clause states:
"Where a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection … states, in relation to any police force … that, in the opinion of the person making the report … the whole or a part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective … unless remedial measures are taken … the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible … to take such measures as may be specified in the direction".
Of course, the question is whether or not that is already sufficiently qualified. Because we have some doubt about that, being naturally suspicious legislators, or suspicious of legislators—anyone who has been involved in local government legislation, as I have been for many years, has every right to be suspicious of it—our amendment would add a few words. Under our amendment, the clause would read:
"the Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction, as, in the opinion of the person making the report, are necessary".
In other words, if the Secretary of State feels that he must make a direction, it must be a consequence of the report, not a freewheeling direction, as we otherwise suspect that it might be.
That may in some ways seem to be small beer, and, as I said, there is a question whether the clause is already sufficiently qualified. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. We still question whether the provision is necessary. We know that we are in the business of management information, which will continue to develop. I dare say that if we go far enough, we shall be able to find under-performing constables before too long. Heaven forbid what the Secretary of State will do with them. But we are not there yet; Utopia has not arrived. I must say that I am immensely relieved that it has not, as we all should be. Heaven help us, we might even get to the point at which we start to talk about under-performing Peers. Then we shall be in serious difficulty.
Although I jest, there is a serious point to all of this, which is to make sure that if the Secretary of State is going to do something by way of direction, that direction should be properly focused on the matters that have been drawn to his attention as being—I will not say "flawed"—possibly deficient. It is a sensible amendment, and I hope that the Minister will find it in his heart to treat it with some sympathy. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The Minister might find it not only in his heart but in his head to accept the amendment. It lets him off the hook of repeated criticism of a kind that he has dealt with goodtemperedly today.
The question of whether the lines are new to this Bill or are derived from the 1996 Bill is beside the point. It is highly questionable whether we should ever legislate
1618
to give an unfettered power of direction to the Secretary of State. The power is not fettered by anything else in the clause or elsewhere in the Bill.
The scheme of the Bill puts a great deal of weight on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Rightly, the inspectors are appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, and they are, without exception, highly experienced and distinguished police officers. The scheme of the Bill, under Clause 3, is to allow the Secretary of State to require the inspectors to carry out an inspection. When they do that, Clause 4 allows the Secretary of State to,
"direct the police authority responsible for maintaining that force to take such measures as may be specified in the direction"
once the report has concluded that the force is inefficient or ineffective or will be unless certain measures are taken. The weight is placed on the unique status and standing of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
All that the amendment asks is that such direction as the Secretary of State consequentially makes shall be made in conformity with the opinion of the inspector making the report. That is a thoroughly reasonable requirement. It derives from the whole purpose of this part of the Bill. The power to make a direction is triggered by the receipt of a critical report. Why should not the power to make the direction be fettered in the way that the amendment stipulates? It is an answer to all the Secretary of State's difficulties, with which the Minister has striven carefully to deal, and I hope that the noble Lord will find it in his head, as well as his heart, to accept the amendment.
Lord Borrie: The noble and learned Lord is, of course, correct in his interpretation of Clause 4. However, as I ventured to say earlier, the ability of the Secretary of State to make directions is solely dependent on there having been a report as to ineffectiveness or inefficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was not correct when he challenged me for saying that a short while ago.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that not only should the power to make directions be limited and fettered by there having to be an inspector's report on inefficiency or ineffectiveness in the whole or in part of the police force, but that it should be further fettered as to the precise nature of the directions. It seems to me that that goes a stage too far. It would be inappropriate that, beyond the powers of the inspectors to determine the facts as to inefficiency or ineffectiveness, they should also have an ability to veto the precise measures that, in accordance with broad government policy and Home Office policy, should follow on that support. I repeat, that seems to be a stage too far and thus the amendment is not one that we ought to accept.
Lord Waddington: The Minister gave me a most helpful assurance a short time ago. I commented on the extremely wide power contained in Clause 4 and received from him an assurance that it was certainly not the intention of the Secretary of State to use that power to require a police authority to tell a chief officer

1619
that he had to recruit a given number of community support officers or to have as community support officers a given proportion of his force. That of course raises an important point which was mentioned earlier in the debate.
We should legislate not only for the present Home Secretary; we must pass good legislation which would not allow any future Home Secretary to have wider powers than are proper in all the circumstances. Does the Minister agree that, although his assurance is most encouraging and I am grateful for it, I must be right to say that the wording of the last few lines of Clause 4 is so wide that in fact it would allow a future Secretary of State to require a police authority to tell a chief officer of police that he had to recruit community support officers? I should like the Minister to agree with me that, given the wording, that must be the case. If it be so, surely we should introduce an amendment, not necessarily incorporating the precise wording used in Amendment No. 28, which would prevent any future Home Secretary from using the power to do that which I certainly think would be quite improper.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before my noble friend sits down, does he not agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is not entirely valid? That is because the wording used in Amendment 28 states,
"in the opinion of the person making the report, are necessary",
which it is clear means that which is necessary in order to fulfil or to rectify that which he has found to be defective? It is not a question of veto; rather the Bill would then require the Secretary of State to rely on the opinion of HMIC in this regard, as he would under the triggering mechanism already contained in the Bill.
Lord Waddington: My noble and learned friend asked me to comment before I resumed my seat, but I would not dream of contradicting him.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have found this to be an illuminating and helpful discussion. I am sure that when we come to study Hansard, we shall find it useful in directing us around this important part of the legislation.
The analysis of my noble friend Lord Borrie most closely reflects the Government's position. The clause seeks to be helpful by trying to retain a measure of flexibility. If we were to accept the amendment as it is, we would take out that flexibility. Perhaps a restriction of that flexibility is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, wants to achieve. That is fine and that is how we understand the thrust of the amendment.
One or two other points need to be put on the record. The Secretary of State is not obliged to issue directions to a police authority where an HMIC report finds problems. He may use his judgment if he disagrees with HMIC for some reason, or if the problem that the HMIC report has quite properly identified can be fixed by less formal measures.
The Home Secretary is the person who will be held accountable by Parliament and the public for the performance of the police service. It is surely right that
1620
he should be able to exercise some judgment as an accountable person. As the elected representative appointed as the Minister responsible for the police service, it would be unusual if he was bound always to take action simply on the basis of HM IC findings.
If the flexibility required to put right a particular problem is not there, it will severely hamper any future Home Secretary's discretion—it will be fettered beyond peradventure—if he cannot use other means, other sources of information and other approaches to put right something identified as being less than effective.
Our argument is that if we are restricted only to the recommendations made by HMIC, we may well be missing a trick. It may be in extreinis that we need to go beyond the HMIC recommendations, but there will be useful advice available. No doubt mature reflection will have been given to a problem by other organisations. ACPO is a reputable source of advice on all matters to do with the police service; surely it is important that we should take time to reflect on the views of the Association of Police A uthorities—the Home Secretary may well want to do that—and the Audit Commission is a highly reputable body. Many Members of the Committee will have had contact with the Audit Commission and local government. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has had hands-on experience and knows very well the quality and weight of their advice. It is surely proper that the Home Secretary may want to reflect on what such organisations may say about an evident failure which has been properly identified in an HMIC report.
The Home Secretary may wish to take advice from the standards unit and other bodies in the police field. He may wish to take soundings from the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association and weigh very carefully what they have to say before he gives careful consideration to HMIC recommendations and decides to issue directions. We need that kind of flexibility. If we do not have it, we will be ruling out other valuable sources of advice and reflection before a view is finally formed.
Before any of this can come into full effect, protocols will have to be hammered out and agreed with ACPO and the APA. There will be an understandable and transparent process.
I understand the strength of the amendment and some of the suspicion—there is always some suspicion of the Home Office, which is given full voice in your Lordships' House from time to time—but we are trying to improve the quality of the service and to make sure that it is effective. Where there have been failures and those failures have been properly identified, we want the Secretary of State to have some flexibility before he issues directions based simply on an HMIC report.
I hope that your Lordships' will reflect on those points before coming to a final view on this issue—perhaps not this evening but at some later stage. They are important considerations and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question which I hope will help the Committee. The debate has got a little confused in that the existing Section 40 of the 1996 Act overlaps with 95 per cent of the clause in the Bill. I do not expect an instant reply. In winding up this part of the debate, the Minister spoke about the Home Secretary needing flexibility and needing the right to look at other sources of information, such as the Audit Commission and so on. But surely all of that prevails and is the case now under Section 40. If it is not, we have a problem.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: To try to add clarification, I think that that is probably the case where we are looking at a whole force inspection. But it is perhaps not the case where we are looking at a part—we may be looking at a BCU or at a particular function in the policing service in a particular police area. That is the important point to reflect on. I shall not quibble about the percentage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: To have flexibility, or not to have flexibility? The problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, appears to have missed a word in the drafting of the Bill. If he looks at line 36 on page 3 he will see that the Secretary of State "may" direct the police authority to take such measures. He does not have to; he "may" do so. That introduces the discretion before we start. Presumably
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Will the noble Lord give way? At the outset I underlined the use of the word "may". It is crucial. It is an important consideration. The Secretary of State will not have to; he "may". That is the core of the argument.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If that is the core of the argument, it gives the Secretary of State the power to consult whomsoever he pleases before exercising the power that he already has. The amendment does not restrict the Secretary of State unreasonably. The Secretary of State is already engaged in an optional process. My suspicion is that in 99 cases out of 100—probably in 101 cases out of 100—when a situation arises where the Secretary of State feels that some action is necessary he will use the existing machinery and will not need to use the powers in this Bill.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. No Home Secretary has ever used the power already vested in him under the 1996 Act. All this seems to be a red herring.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I must admit, as I was a Member of this place when the 1996 legislation completed its passage—although in those days I was not particularly interested in Home Office matters—to a sense of collective guilt about it. There is nothing I can do about that. If those powers have not been exercised under the existing legislation, that calls into question the need to stiffen up the powers under this Bill.
1622
I believe that this small amendment, which has caused more than 20 minutes of interesting debate, has been worthwhile. There is little more to be said now. There is a clear difference of view which, on another occasion, one might feel inclined to do something about. I do not believe that the restriction in the amendment is unreasonable. It would maintain the proper focus on the management of these matters and it would tighten up the whole system rather than loosen it.
It is not a question of restricting the power of the Secretary of State. We are talking about making the totality of the system work well and maintaining a proper focus on the issues that matter. Not least among the difficulties is the fact that, if one starts permitting too many unqualified powers, one begins to lose that focus.
I have never yet seen an Audit Commission report on the efficiency and effectiveness of a Home Secretary. I have an awful feeling that, were we ever to see such a report, it might prove very revealing. With that rather anarchistic thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—

"(2) A direction under this section may require a police authority to require the chief officer of police of the police force to prepare and submit to that authority a plan ("an action plan") for taking remedial measures in relation to the matters identified in an inspection report mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) The provision which a police authority may require to be included in an action plan shall include—

(a) the steps it is proposed to take to remedy the matters identified in the inspection report mentioned in subsection (1) and the proposed performance targets to be aimed at in relation to those matters;

(b) the time limits to be applied to the taking of those steps and to the meeting of those targets;

(c) provision for the making of progress reports on the implementation of the plan to the police authority in such a manner and at such times as may be specified by the authority; and

(d) provision for the duration of the plan and for it to cease to apply in the circumstances determined by the police authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State.

(4) An action plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the chief officer of police of the force in question.

(5) Before approving the action plan, the police authority may, after consultation with the chief officer, revise or amend it.

(6) The police authority shall forward a copy of the action plan to the Secretary of State and may further amend or revise the plan in the light of any representations made to it by the Secretary of State.

(7) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State to direct, or the police authority to require, the inclusion in an action plan of any requirement to do, or not to do anything in a particular case identified for the purposes of the requirement, or in relation to a particular person so identified.

(8) A chief officer of police of any police force shall comply with any requirement made of him by the police authority maintaining that force in response to a direction of the Secretary of State made under this section."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 29 seeks to remove the need for Clause 5 by amending Clause 4. Clause 5 gives the Home Secretary the power to direct chief officers where a force, or part of it, is deemed to be failing. When we spend more time on Clause 5, no doubt we shall find that it is a controversial area.
The amendment seeks to build on the existing powers of the Home Secretary to give directions to police authorities under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996. It incorporates much of the content of Clause 5 while retaining local accountability for policing through the police authority, therefore making the direction one which passes through the police authority rather than directly to the chief officer.
We have spent a considerable time discussing this issue. It is clear that the Home Secretary is anxious to strengthen his capacity to act where a force or a basic command unit is deemed, whether by H M Inspectorate or the new police standards unit, to be failing. We in London have heard over recent weeks, by means of front page articles in the Evening Standard, how my right honourable friend the Home Secretary might see fit to use those new intervention powers. There was subsequent denial: it was all a misquotation.
It is important for us to reflect that there has been little mention of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia: that the extensive powers already available to the Home Secretary under Section 40 of the Police Act have not been used. Those powers empower him to direct a local police authority to take remedial action if he believes that things are going wrong. In one way or another, those powers have been available since 1964 but I believe that no Home Secretary has ever felt it necessary to use them. Some of the debate may have been a bit of froth about nothing.
Clause 4 updates the powers in Section 40 to cover parts of forces- in other words, basic command units—as well as the force as a whole. I have no difficulty with that. It seems a more flexible and sensible instrument rather than the blunderbuss approach which might have been applied against an entire force area. However, it is not yet clear to me why the powers available to the Home Secretary set out in Clause 4 are considered insufficient, or why we need the more far-reaching powers in Clause 5 which would result in the Home Secretary by-passing the local police authority to intervene directly in forces.
I have listened carefully to a number of statements in recent weeks in which the Government have said how much they value police authorities' role in providing local accountability for policing. We have been told that police authorities, such as my own, will be actively engaged before these powers are used and that protocols will be drawn up to ensure that they are used temperately. Those assurances are welcome. I have no doubt that the present Government would abide by them. But let us remember that no such assurances can hind future governments. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has spoken several times today on that
1624
point. We can be clear that no such assurances could bind a future malevolent Home Secretary, if one can contemplate such an awesome prospect.
Police authorities are responsible for managing and monitoring local police performances. They must answer to their communities for the policing services provided. So at the heart of the amendment is this question: why do the Government need to intervene directly in forces rather than work with and through local police authorities? If police authorities do not have the powers contained in Clause 5 to intervene and make directions, the proposed amendment would provide them with the powers if it followed a direction from the Home Secretary.
My amendment to Clause 4 would replicate much of what is proposed in Clause 5 but it would avoid the need to micro-manage problems by imposing targets and timescales and scrutinising action plans in a local policing area, which I understand my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is seeking 1:o avoid. Instead, that would he the responsibility of the local police authority.
The purpose of the amendment is to recognise the respective national and local accountability of the Home Secretary and the police authority by providing for the Home Secretary to work through and with the local police authority. It would do nothing to undermine the objectives that Ministers have outlined today. It would give the Home Secretary a mechanism by which he could intervene when he felt it necessary, given his national responsibilities. It would do nothing to undermine that. Nor would it in any way undermine the need for specificity in focusing on basic command units or particular functions within a force. However, the amendment recognises that it is primarily for the police authority to tackle the problems identified and work with the chief officer to put in place an action plan to remedy matters in a way that reflects the needs of local communities.
The amendment would also ensure that the Home Secretary, working through the police authority, was able to input his views about the action that he thought needed to be taken to remedy any deficiencies in performance.
As I have said, my amendment relates to Clause 4, but it would obviate the need for Clause 5. All of your Lordships agree on the need to preserve and strengthen the tripartite relationship and the shared responsibility and accountability for policing between the Home Secretary, the local police authority and the chief officer. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that if remedial action needs to be taken in any force or BCU, it is done in a way that reflects local community needs and enhances rather than undermines that tripartite relationship. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have a large number of amendments in this interesting group, including Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 43, 45, 102, 103, 122 and 123. Those are all amendments to Clause 5. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, whose well

1625
constructed amendment to Clause 4 would obviate the need for Clause 5. If his amendment were accepted, my amendments would inevitably become redundant.
The amendments in the group are all directed at retaining and ensuring the continuation of the tripartite constitutional arrangement. We rather like the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and it is tempting to say that if the Bill had been drafted in that way, although no doubt we would have thought of some amendments to test the Government's thinking, we would not have been as concerned about it as we are by the drafting of Clause 5.
The power to give directions causes concern and we are right to worry about it. It is an awkward conjunction. The clause gives powers to give directions to chief officers, completely bypassing the police authority. As drafted, that provision is unsatisfactory. We have a series of detailed amendments that would go some way towards rectifying that situation by bringing the police authority back into consideration, which is only right.
It is an interesting group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on his amendment. Some concern about the content of this legislation might have relieved if the Bill had been drafted in that way in the first place. Sadly, for both of us, it was not.
10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, a question that does not arise from any lack of sympathy on my part with what he has drafted. I recall a situation that arose in Derbyshire some 10 years ago. The police authority in that area was very Left-wing, and was determined not to allow the chief constable the funds that he needed in order to maintain an efficient and effective police force. In those circumstances, there would have been no use requiring the Home Secretary to deal with the police authority because it was the source of the trouble. Can the noble Lord say how the Home Secretary would handle such a situation in the event of Amendment No. 29 being enacted?
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am not quite sure whether it is procedurally correct for me to respond under these circumstances; so, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
As I understand it, Clause 4 re-enacts the existing power of Secretaries of State to give directions to a police authority. I do not know the origins of the 1996 legislation, or whether it followed on from the folk memory of the traumas that arose with the Derbyshire police authority of that time and was a consequence thereof. However, I suspect that the power of the Home Secretary to give directions to police authorities was designed precisely to avoid the sort of situation referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may assist my noble and learned friend. The margin heading of Section 41
1626
of the Police Act 1996 refers to "Directions as to minimum budget". I had a fair feeling that that wording existed. Subsection (1) states:
"The power of the Secretary of State to give directions under section 40 to a police authority … include[s] power to direct the authority that the amount of its budget requirement for any financial year … shall not be less than an amount specified in the direction".
Therefore, my noble and learned friend's specific concern on that issue is already covered within existing legislation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 40, 42, 49, 56, 97, 100, 101, 105. 108, 117, 120, 125 and 128. This does seem to be a rather bulky form of grouping, comprising, as it does, 28 amendments. It is made more complex by the fact that several of those amendments relate to Clause 5 with which we have yet to deal, while the remainder relate to Schedule I and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation NCIS and NCS. However, I shall be brief.
In so far as amendments relate to Clause 5, it would be better for us to deal with them in relation to the Question whether that clause should stand part of the Bill. As has been indicated both on Second Reading and during the course of today's discussions, we have fundamental root-and-branch objections to Clause 5. The amendments in this group seek to interpose between the Secretary of State and the police authority. Similarly, the amendments to the first schedule have the same aim, except that they would interpose between the two authorities to which the schedule relates.
Noble Lords on these Benches rather warm to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Rather than continue at this time of night-1 shall not say "bore" the Committee—I shall conclude my remarks on that note.
Lord Bradshaw: I, too, support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I also remember that police authorities have a large independent membership—they are not all councillors—who are all reasonably well remunerated since provision for police authorities' expenses came into effect. We are therefore dealing not with part-time amateurs but with professionals.
Lord Elton: I am responsible for only three small amendments in this group. Although they all strike in Clause 5, which we have not yet reached, they share common ground with the concerns that all noble Lords have expressed about the tripartite arrangement. I prefer to express the issue rather differently. In Clause 5, we find the chief officer of police of an authority eyeball to eyeball with the Secretary of State backed by HMI and the Home Office. It seems to me that when the Secretary of State is handing down to the chief constable the plan of action that he should take, the chief constable should be protected by his authority at least in relation to how long he has to provide the remedy.

1627
Although it is, I suppose, only gesture politics, the Secretary of State could demand very complicated and difficult action, and he may demand that it be taken unreasonably quickly. It seems to me that those who will know best whether the time allowed is unreasonably short are those at the police authority under whom the chief police officer serves. I am simply highlighting an issue to which we may return.
Lord Rooker: If I may, I shall do a deal with noble Lords. I shall start at the end rather than the beginning and agree to consider—by which I mean take it away and come back to it—the possibility of consulting the police authority and the chief police officer before making directions. I wanted to get that out of the way. As noble Lords know, when we come to Clause 5, we shall simply make the same speeches, and that does not make much sense.
In moving Amendment No. 29, my noble friend Lord Harris has done the House a service by enabling us to debate some of the issues in the legislation, rather than simply to consider the Bill line by line. Some issues need to be debated, and we can tidy up the loose ends on Report. In speaking to the amendment, it might also be useful if I used some of the background, non-speaking parts of my notes, as they sometimes have a bit more meat. I have found them useful when serving as a Minister in other departments, although I carry the can if I misuse them. I shall use them also because I am trying to win hearts and minds in relation to my noble friend's amendment, which has won widespread support for the way in which it addresses the issue.
I cannot, however, use some arguments—such as that the police authority should not be directly involved in operational matters—because the amendment would not involve the authorities to any greater extent than the Secretary of State is involved in Clause 5. However, there is a difficulty and a difference between the police authorities and the Secretary of State in the sense that the police authorities administer funding. One would want to keep them away from operational matters for that reason alone. There is a conflict there that does not affect the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 29 would also enable the two different bodies to direct chief officers, and that might create conflict. The amendment also contains no provision requiring the police authority to do anything more than to forward a copy of the action plan to the Secretary of State. Therefore, although the amendment is a novel way of approaching the issue, it does not solve all the problems. I wanted to share those points because I am giving a commitment to reexamine the issue.
I also want to make it clear that, as I said, Clauses 4 and 5 are last-resort measures. That is stated in the long letter that I sent to Members of the Committee. It is important to note that the powers we are discussing will not be used in relation to individual or named cases.
1628
The police authority is already built into the process for issuing directions under Clause 5 and it could be argued that routing the direction via the police authority will not achieve anything very different. I shall not discuss bureaucracy at this point. The chief officer is required to consult the police authority or the service authority before submitting the required action plan to the Secretary of State. One would imagine that the police authority would be able to take that opportunity to advise its chief constable on what it believes should be included, bearing in mind its duty of best value.
The Secretary of State is required to notify the police authority that he is invoking his power to direct the chief officer. That will be the opportunity for the police authority to advise the Home Secretary of its views as to what form remedial measures should take.
The White Paper, Policing a New century, makes clear that operation of the direction-making power will be subject to a protocol. As that will be drawn up between the three tripartite partners—the Home Secretary, the police authorities and the chief officers—opportunities to make representations and to consult can be built into that process. I hope that that is a strengthening measure. We want to make absolutely clear that consultation can be built into that process. If police authorities also had the power to direct chief officers operationally, the difficulty I mentioned earlier would arise; that is, a chief officer could be required to comply with conflicting directions.
The police authority should already be aware of the problems giving rise to directions being issued. It would, or should, have held many discussions on the issues. It should not be a surprise to anyone by its nature of being a last resort measure. Existing police management and other measures would already have been tried to resolve the matter as police authorities monitor performance and ensure best value. The police authority should have already taken the chief officer to task if necessary. That should have been done before the powers contained in the clauses we are discussing were invoked. The Home Secretary becomes involved as a last resort when all other measures that could have been taken to improve the situation have failed.
Having said that, I conclude as I began when I say that I shall take the measure away in its totality as I should bore the Committee if I made the same points with regard to further amendments. We shall consider the measure to see whether we can build in consultation with the police authority and chief officers before the Home Secretary reaches the point of making directions.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord enlighten me as to what exactly a protocol is, how long it survives and what its effects will be on the next administration and the next administration but one? Will he also kindly let me have a copy of the long letter to which he keeps referring as I appear to be the only one not to have received it? That is not his fault as I did not speak in the Second Reading debate. While I am on my feet and

1629
apologising for that, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for saying that I torpedoed him when I was in the wrong clause and he was in the right one.
Lord Rooker: I apologise to the noble Lord. I shall ensure that he receives a copy of the letter. It was sent to the noble Lords who have spoken. I sincerely hope that a copy was also placed in the Library. However, I shall ensure that he gets a copy first thing in the morning or before he leaves the House this evening.
A protocol is what you make it. I am astonished that the noble Lord, as a former Minister, asked that question. If the protocol is drawn up for agreement by definition with the three parties, that means that it remains until it is changed by agreement with the three parties. A protocol is not forced unilaterally on the parties. It is a road map, if you like, a working document or an agreement on who will do what and what the trigger points will be. Protocols work perfectly satisfactorily in other situations. Devolution in Scotland and Wales is working very successfully. There are protocols about boundary areas and decisions have to be taken by parties to the agreement. It is not necessary to define every dot and comma but the arrangement normally works quite well. Moreover, agreement is involved; if there is no agreement, there is not really a protocol.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: The Minister makes my point for me: such arrangements are a great deal less durable than those involving statute. If he is relying on the arrangement in order to reassure us with regard to our concerns about what we believe should be addressed by statute, I must advise him that it does not altogether do so. I am merely stating a general principle, not attacking the specific point.
Lord Rooker: If the protocol is agreed by the parties—if it is the agreed protocol with which we shall work—any party that seeks to change the protocol has to secure the agreement of the other two parties. An ogre cannot come in at any part of the tripartite arrangement and use force on the other two parties in terms of the protocol. The arrangement has to work by agreement.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this amendment, and in particular to my noble friend the Minister who said that he would take the matter away and consider it. I listened carefully to what he said, and he implied that he might consider only whether or not police authorities should be consulted before making directions to chief officers. I am sure that he did not really mean that and that he will give much more extensive consideration to the issues.
The amendment is at the heart of our debate about the tripartite arrangement. I was a little confused about some of the Minister's arguments and I shall need to examine them again in detail. He seemed to
1630
suggest that there was a problem with channelling the whole matter through the police authority because one needed to separate funding decisions from operational matters. I happen to believe that an understanding of operational matters is rather important when taking funding decisions. I was also bemused by his suggestion that somehow this was a problem for police authorities but not for the Home Secretary. Eighty per cent of funding for police services comes through central government grants. The Home Secretary is therefore not insulated from considering funding matters and therefore operational matters. That argument needs further clarification: we may return to it at a later stage.
I was not entirely convinced by the Minister's argument that chief officers would somehow be subjected to two directions. There may be a fault in the amendment's drafting. My intention was that there would not be a Clause 5 if the amendment were agreed to; in which case, the only route for securing directions would be through the police authorities. I am not sure where the second direction would come from.
The Minister seemed to suggest that somehow the approach was a simpler way of doing things but that it made no difference in substance because the protocols, which we spent several minutes discussing, would involve much consultation with the police authority. If it makes so little difference, I suspect that we might do better operating on a principle in relation to which the existing systems of accountability were maintained. The direction in such circumstances would come to the police authority, which would apply its local knowledge and experience and make whatever directions were necessary to the chief officer. Again, that involves powers that might never be used but it would preserve the tripartite balance. I suspect that that is strongly felt in the Committee and perhaps elsewhere. In those circumstances, the Minister seemed to be saying that the Government's objectives could be achieved but in a way that did not undermine the principle of the tripartite arrangement. I clearly need to study the Minister's argument carefully.
I hope that the Minister's consultations and consideration of these matters will bear fruit and that when we discuss these matters again during the Bill's passage through this House we may make some progress. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: We have spent just under two hours discussing this clause. It is not my intention to delay the Committee further, except to say that the Minister has already conceded the matter of consultation. I am delighted about that. He will have listened to the argument in relation to the powers to give direction to a police authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, we all need to pull down on this matter,

1631
and I believe that one way in which to do so is to consider seriously the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I consider that that offers a solution not only in relation to this clause but also in relation to Clause 5, which I suspect is the hub of the Bill.
Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is possible. prior to Report stage, to indicate how far he is prepared to go on the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Harris. That would help us to determine the stance that we take on Report in relation to Clause 5 and this clause.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before my noble friend Lord Dholakia sits down, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Earlier he made the point, which stunned me, that there has never been an occasion where the existing Section 40 of the 1996 Act has been used. Is the Minister aware of that? If he is, does it not make most of what we have been discussing for the past few hours extraordinarily academic?
Lord Rooker: I was not the person who said that. It followed from what I said earlier. The present legislation is the nuclear option. One does not use the nuclear option; one ends up doing nothing. That is the whole point. The change in the clause which we are discussing relates to,
"the whole or any part of the force inspected".
That is the problem. We are losing sight of what the issue is about. It is the "whole or any part". The present status quo is the nuclear option, and no one is using it. That is the issue. Although I do not have details of where it has or has not been considered, that is the root cause of the problem.
We are dealing with the Question whether the clause stand part. We have debated that, and I make an offer to the Committee which I do not believe it can refuse. Bearing in mind how far I have gone on this matter—Clauses 4 and 5 are parcelled together—we can pass Clause 4, get to Clause 5 and then all go home. That will give me slightly longer to consider what we are going to do on Report.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Directions to chief officers]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 2, leave out "whether".
The noble Lord said: I like the Minister's attempt to seduce us into drawing stumps early as if Clause 5 were not on the face of the Bill. It is what I would call a gallant attempt. But, sadly, we can all read, and Clause 5, for better or for worse, is before us.
Not least of the problems that we are beginning to face is that we must all deal with the problem as it is and not the problem as we should like it to be. I suspect that after the previous debate we all believe we should like it to be something slightly different.
However, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 seek to delete words from the second and third lines at the top of page 4 of the Bill. That is the early part of Clause 5 which deals with directions to chief officers. It states:
"This section applies where the Secretary of State (whether in consequence of a report under section 54 or otherwise) is satisfied in relation to any police force",
and so on. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 deal with Clause 5, as I have just mentioned. Amendments Nos. 91, 92, 111 and 112 deal with the identical words in the appropriate schedules at the end of the Bill.
We consider that these three silly little words— "whether…or otherwise"—give too much discretion. They give carte blanche. The Secretary of State will be able to do as he pleases in giving directions to chief officers. Setting aside the point about whether to use the normal tripartite arrangements and go through the authority, which we dealt with to a greater or lesser extent on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, if this clause were to remain in the Bill, a matter about which many noble Lords have the gravest doubts, I cannot accept that that kind of carte blanche, open discretion is appropriate.
I agree with the qualifications that appear later on,
"that … the whole or … part of the force …is … not efficient or not effective, or … will cease to be efficient or effective"—
that may go on behind the back of the police authority—is not satisfactory. I am aware of the words that the Minister has used in the earlier debate, so I do not want to pursue the point further.
This open discretion is too great. If the words that I have suggested are removed, the Bill would read,
"This section applies where the Secretary of State (in consequence of a report under section 54) is satisfied in relation to any police force maintained for any police area—
(a) that the whole or any part of the force is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective".
or is likely to become so unless remedial measures are taken. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable restriction. Carte blanche may be given, but the Secretary of State may get out of bed in the wrong mood one morning and, even if he has sound advisers, not take their advice. Even expensive legal advisers, who are much more expensive than top civil servants, do not always have their advice taken. I do not believe a serious study has been conducted of how much legal opinion is given, at huge cost, and then disregarded, but I suspect the figure is quite large. Advice is advice is advice. I believe that it is reasonable to remove that element of discretion. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We on these Benches wholeheartedly concur with these two amendments. The words in brackets could be said to be misleading. Frankly, they should not be there at all and the clause would then be clearer.
It is difficult to know how to deal with all the amendments prior to the debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We are completely opposed to it on grounds of local democracy, destruction of the tripartite arrangements, the impact and fall-out that it will have on the calibre of people who

1633
will be willing to serve on these partly neutered police authorities and a number of other reasons. I shall confine my remarks to that. For the other amendments in this group and later amendments, I shall be extremely brief, keeping my powder dry for the big one; that is, to knock out the whole mis-shapen clause.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Condon: I support Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Unless the Home Secretary's view about ineffectiveness and inefficiency is sourced back to objective evidence, there is a danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, of the provision giving carte blanche. An unreasonable Home Secretary could take a doctrinal, subjective, idiosyncratic view of inefficiency and ineffectiveness and seek to impose directions based on that subjective view.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: We were told just a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, with the tacit approval of the Minister, that the power remains and is sufficient for the Secretary of State to give a direction to the police authority. Now it is said that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to give a direction directly to the chief constable, by-passing the police authority. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
Lord Rooker: I do not want to repeat what I have already said. It was not written down in impeccable text; it was in bits and pieces. I stand by what I said earlier. We shall take another look at this issue. I wrap this point up in relation to both Clauses 4 and 5 as opposed to individual amendments on which I could almost make the same points.
As my noble friend Lord Bassam said in response to an earlier amendment, there are sources of information on police performance other than just the inspectorate. While it is true that it is not on the face of the Bill—I accept that—last year the Home Secretary set up the standards unit with the remit of driving up the performance of all forces to the standards of the best. It will be working with police forces, the basic command units and local communities on the ground. They will be a valuable source of information on performance.
Similarly, organisations like the Audit Commission, which has been referred to many times, produce valuable work indicating where police performance is strong and where there is room for improvement. It would restrict the aim of the clause—to improve police performance across the board—if those sources of information could not be used as the basis for requiring remedial action in forces which are not offering the highest quality of service.
In other words, other sources of information exist, none of which will be dreamed up on a whim as the Home Secretary gets out bed in the morning, as someone said. As former Ministers will know, lawyers in departments spend most of their time telling us what we cannot do, not what we can do. We get out of bed with ideas and they say we cannot implement them.
1634
That is the point. The legal advice in the main is to say, "You cannot do it because you have duties, restrictions and statutory requirements and you must find another way of achieving your outcome". At the end of the day it is the outcome in which we are interested. The process is important in respect of having acceptable outcomes because of the democratic involvement of local communities and police authorities. But the outcome of improving police performance across the board is what it is all about.
I cannot go further than that. It is implicit in what I said earlier that we need to look again at this matter. I am not saying that these bodies will end up on the face of the Bill. But it is legitimate for us to say, as set out in the White Paper, that the Home Secretary has access to other sources of information which would give him the wherewithal to say, if you like, it is time to pull the levers of last resort—I repeat "of last resort"—to raise standards in a force or part of it. That is quite legitimate and what the public would expect him to do.
Lord Elton: Presumably the sources of information which the Home Secretary has, to which the Minister referred, are also available to the inspectorate. Therefore it would be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to function only on the consequence of an adverse report, as my noble friend suggests.
When the noble Lord is Home Secretary in his turn, as we all hope he will be, and leaps out of bed with an idea which is a bit far-fetched, and the lawyers say, "You cannot do that because", we hope they will say, "You cannot do that because of Lord Dixon-Smith's Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 to the Act".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Can I also take up the point with the Minister? He talks with emphasis about the Home Secretary using these powers only as a last resort. There is nothing in this clause about the Home Secretary using these powers as a last resort. The Minister's retort will be, "Of course no Home Secretary in his or her right senses will use them other than in a last resort". Our response to that—and the Minister was good enough at the start of today's debate to make the point—is that one does not legislate in the field of police rights, powers and duties other than on a highly "suspicious" basis. Let us put it that way.
We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who knows a thing or two about policing, that one could have—and it is not fanciful to contemplate—a Home Secretary who was thoroughly misguided, thoroughly doctrinaire or thoroughly pigheaded. Therefore, I put it to the Minister that it really is not fair of him to say that this is only a last resort power. If he wants to put that in the Bill we should all be very happy. It might be a rather difficult provision to write in, but I should accept it.
Lord Rooker: I do not know what more I can say. That these powers will be exercised as a last resort is not in the Bill but it is in the letter that I wrote to noble Lords. I cannot say any more than I have already said. Otherwise, I shall repeat myself. I have listened to what Members of the Committee have said.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister, as always, is trying to be helpful. The standards unit, which is a part of the CPTDA, and the Audit Commission are likely to be the Home Secretary's main sources of information beyond the inspectorate, although I have no doubt that he will have other sources. Both are public bodies working all the time with the various police forces. Certainly, they will not be working in secret. Therefore, those forces will know what is happening. As the body develops a view of what is happening in a particular force, perhaps even a particular BCU or whatever, it certainly will not be keeping its conclusions secret. The knowledge of its opinion will disseminate through the force that is being examined, whether it is in the financial management field, in the field of management advice—which the Audit Commission is always developing—or in the field of, if one likes, the organisation and practice of the management of a small number of men in a tight geographic area.
The idea that the Secretary of State will find out about this in some blinding flash of light at the tail end of the process and then need to regulate to do something about it is, frankly, stretching the imagination. If the local force has not begun to operate on the matter causing concern to either of those bodies long before the Secretary of State gets to hear about it, I, for one, would be extremely surprised.
We return to the need for what is proposed and its open unrestricted carte blanche discretion. I cannot see it. The Minister has done his best to answer. As I have already said, we shall need to look carefully at what the Government may come up with before Report stage. I remain completely convinced that the wording of the amendment is appropriate, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert
"(a) that the force is, or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or"
The noble Lord said: We come to another aspect of the clause. Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 39 all relate to the question of whether we really need a 14-pound sledgehammer to crack a nut, even though it is probably no more than a hazelnut. The real question is whether if something in a particular part of a force is going wrong, that really requires all the force arid direction of the Secretary of State in the formal sense to put it right. The Minister said, "Oh, of course that is only the last resort". That may or may not be so, but a Secretary of State faced with two or three days of bad reports in the tabloids on a specific issue may find both his temper and patience somewhat abbreviated.
While he may feel that he should have a power to direct in respect of matters that affect the whole force, I find it amazing that he should feel that it might be desirable to have that power of direction down to something as small as a BCU. The performance of a BCU is not exclusively related to those who work
1636
within it. I have already made the point that a police force is an integrated force with many common services that operate from a headquarters—although perhaps a dispersed headquarters—provided centrally and available to all BCUs within the force area.
I find the idea that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to say that a particular little area was causing such vast problems that it required all the force and majesty of Her Majesty's Government quite amazing. That underestimates both the Secretary of State himself and his powers of influence and persuasion and the men on the ground who would be subject to that power, who are deemed by the clause to be insensitive, unresponsive and unwilling to take steps to improve their performance. I have not yet met a group of men doing such work with that sort of attitude. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I shall not repeat myself. Everything that I could say about this group of amendments I have said to the previous group. I shall just add another statistic. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not living in the real world. I shall give another example of variation. If all was OK, the powers would not be needed. The figures are for BCUs in urban areas for violence against the person—another offence—during the same years. The best detection rate was 89.6 per cent; the worst was 54.9 per cent. Think about that. Do not tell me or anybody else—particularly the people living in the area where it is only 54 per cent—that everything is fine, everyone is doing everything that they should and there is no reason for further action. Of course there is reason for action if a comparable area has a detection rate of 89.6 per cent— virtually 90 per cent, compared to 55 per cent.
Someone is doing something about it—but ineffectively. The existing processes are not working all over. That is the point that I am making. That is why it is a last resort. If, fundamentally, noble Lords do not accept that variation in performance is a central pillar in our reasons for taking action, I have a major problem on my hands. If we do not consider it and accept it as a serious factor, we will never understand why the Home Secretary feels obliged to do something. He is held responsible at the court of opinion for those massive variations.
We are out to improve police performance, not to make all the forces the same. We were told earlier, almost as a little joke, that there would always be a bottom quarter. Of course there will. The point is that the gap in performance between the bottom quarter and the top quarter could be 1 per cent; it could, on the other hand, be 70 or 80 per cent. It is the difference in performance, not where they are in the ranking, that matters. They could all be very close together but some would be at the bottom. On the other hand, there could be massive variations in performance. Those massive variations are unacceptable, and they are the reason why we want to take further powers to do something about it, as a last resort, after all the other management practices and monitoring have failed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is difficult for us to react to the statistics when we do not know to what they relate or have any background facts. Having done a bit of criminology, I think that anybody who has would say that the differences in the problems of different policing areas are extraordinarily wide and divergent.
All the Minister's remarks are posited on the assumption that the Home Office can do it better. That is where there may be a lot of disagreement on this side of the House.
Lord Rooker: The question is, "Could the Home Office do it worse?". I am painting a picture of the status quo. There is no secret about the variation in figures; plenty of statistics have been published. This evening I have used comparison figures for a group of 30 comparable basic command units, all in urban areas. Those are the comparative figures that I have used tonight; I have not been comparing apples and pears. That is my information, and it covers a group of 30 urban areas, including the best and the worst and considering the changes in the rates.
We want to make improvements. We will be held accountable all right if there is no improvement. Police officers, chief officers and police authorities are working their socks off to raise their game, to raise their performance. That is going on all over the country, and we understand that. However, there are still massive variations in performance in like-for-like authorities. We simply cannot ignore that. We want to help: if you like, we are the man from the Home Office, we have come to help. Help is required.
We do not have all the answers at the centre; no one argues that. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is, "Can the Home Office do it worse?". We need to raise our game and make improvements. That is the purpose of the clauses.
Lord Bradshaw: Some of the figures need careful examination. There is such a thing as ethical crime recording. Some police authorities record crimes, visit prisons and knock crimes off against people. Others rely entirely on primary detection of crime. That is the sort of difference.
Recently in Westminster Hall I saw an exhibition by the Audit Commission of various performance indicators. The figures for Thames Valley seemed poor. However, when we probed deeply, we found that our performance was not poor. In fact, our performance was not measured very well. There are big differences and I am quite certain that in large part the Home Office will not know the answers.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, speaks with greater knowledge than I am able to do; nonetheless I am anxious to support his point. I recall two things from my time at the Home Office. The first was the wide variations in the levels of the recording of crime and the second was that there are some areas in which it is very much more difficult to persuade anyone to give evidence. In some areas it is impossible.
1638
The noble Lord has so often rested so much on these figures that I do think that we need to know more about them.
Lord Rooker: Plenty of information has been published on variations. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was making an accusation about the ethical counting of figures, but we have other published research. The Audit Commission has gathered figures. If the root cause of the issue here is that noble Lords do not believe that there is a wide variation in like-for-like police authorities and if they question the rationale of why we say that these levers need to be made available to the Home Secretary, then I shall do what I can to provide an encyclopaedia of figures to all noble Lords—all legitimate figures that I shall test them on the next time the Committee meets.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord bombards us with too much information, I should make clear that we are not questioning that there is a wide variation. That is common knowledge. What we question is the matter of "like for like". That is the kind of point that can be completely obscured unless one knows the methodology.
Lord Condon: In compiling the statistics, did the Minister include the very recent research undertaken by the totally independent Police Foundation? It looked at over 300 basic command units. When it took out the genuine demographic differences, it found that in almost 90 per cent of the performance indicators, the variation in performance was less than 5 per cent.
Lord Rooker: I shall be happy to have all the available figures put to noble Lords. I do not have any problem with that. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, is yes.
Lord Elton: It is not a question of the figures; it is a question of the methodology. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, has just explained to the Committee how that can be done.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I think that we are in danger of glaring at each other across an open ditch. No one disputes the fact that there are perhaps—I say "perhaps" because the methodology is significant—unacceptable variations in performance. In my view, the Minister did not listen to my opening remarks with sufficient care, because the question here is whether this, as it were, local nuclear option of last resort for the Secretary of State is necessary.
By the time the Secretary of State receives those statistics, the local people will have been aware of them for some considerable time. The CPTDA, in its capacity of working across the country as a standards unit, will also be aware of those units which are

1639
performing well and those which are not. The Audit Commission will have been working in detail with the forces, churning the information out of its computers, again for some considerable time.
The question is whether statutory action is appropriate at that stage. We should bear in mind that the men on the ground will want to improve their performance because no one wants to be on the bottom of the heap for a minute longer than they have to be and they will work hard to get off it. Even if the result of that is that the bottom of the heap rises with them, they will work to get off it. The question is whether this action is necessary.
The Minister said that the Secretary of State needs the power. We believe that he already has the levers. He has created the mechanisms; he has got the inspectorate; he has got the Audit Commission; he has got the police standards unit; he has got the CPT1DA; he will have a highly-motivated group of chief constables across the whole country; and he will have 49, or whatever is the number, of police authorities which certainly will not want under-performing units. If all those people have that ambition, by the time the Secretary of State gets hold of the figures he will not need to act.
The Minister could respond by saying, "If I am never going to need to act because they are all so good, what are you worried about?". As we have said before, the problem is that we do not only have to consider the Bill in the hands of reasonable men; we also have to
1640
consider it in a wider context. We have had quite enough of this. We are going to disagree but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, as one can speak only when there is a Motion before the House, I do not think that I can dispose of my amendment in three minutes. I hope that I shall not be asked to attempt to finish it before 11 o'clock. I shall go on talking for a moment longer because I believe that this is in transaction between the noble Lords on the Front Benches. I cannot make my poini and get it answered in less than three minutes and I hope that what they were discussing is whether we should adjourn the House at this stage.
Lord Rooker: I am in the hands of noble Lords. It makes sense to finish the debate on a group of amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: With that, perhaps I can finish the debate on this group by begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minuses before eleven o'clock.

  Joint Force Harrier
  Joint Force Harrier
  Nimrod MR4
  Nimrod MR4
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Magistrates' Court Penalties: Enforcement
  Magistrates' Court Penalties: Enforcement
  Hunting
  Hunting
  Images of England: Photographs
  Images of England: Photographs
  Export of Works of Art Report
  Export of Works of Art Report
  Northern Ireland: Children of Different Faiths
  Northern Ireland: Children of Different Faiths
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Staffing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Staffing
  Senior Salaries Review Body Report
  Senior Salaries Review Body Report
  Proposals for Change: Public Consultation
  Proposals for Change: Public Consultation
  Ministers: Travel Arrangements
  Ministers: Travel Arrangements