Sitting of 9 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Public Appointments (Women)
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress has been made in increasing the number of women in public appointments. [23441]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government are committed to increasing diversity in public appointments. We are determined that women should hold half of all public appointments. I shall host a series of seminars across the country to encourage more women to apply for such appointments. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will attend the seminar in Tyneside.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she share my disappointment that Dame Rennie Fritchie's last report showed that we had moved backwards in the participation of women in public appointments? Will the Minister ask Departments to undertake equality audits of the criteria that they use for making public appointments so that we can ensure that women's experience of using public services and of voluntary participation are properly counted when public appointments are being made?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Departments—for example, the Department of Health—have recently done well with regard to appointments. When we consider public appointments, of course we need to look at experience across the whole range. That is why voluntary work is so important—as is the presence of so many women as school governors.
    The forms will be revised. The new format asks for examples of relevant skills gained within any field, such as voluntary work. Furthermore, the form will no longer feature an honours section—an aspect that may have deterred some people from applying.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Given the need to encourage women to apply for public appointments, might not women be influenced by the fate of women who hold such appointments, such as Elizabeth
    526
    France, the information commissioner, who has indicated that she is not seeking reappointment, as her four-year term of office would not have enabled her at any stage to use the freedom of information powers due to the Government's delay? Do not the Government need to be seen to support those women who take on public appointments?
    Mrs. Roche: It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman has gone down that track. As he knows, Elizabeth France leaves her position with a great deal of good will for her tremendous work, and the Government—and everybody—have the highest regard for her. It is well recognised that after two terms the usual practice is to hold an open competition. That is what is taking place in this case.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I say how much I welcome all the work that the Government are doing to encourage more women into public life? I welcome the series of seminars. When my hon. Friend organises where they are to be held, will she look closely at holding one in north Staffordshire, in order that we can encourage more women—especially young women—to take up public office?
    Mrs. Roche: It is not possible to cover everywhere, but of course we shall consider where we are holding the seminars, and we shall also try to ensure that the participants invited to them come from the widest possible area.
    Angela Watkinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that women applying for public appointments in health authorities have to declare their political affiliation? Does she agree that Conservative women are thus at a double disadvantage?
    Mrs. Roche: I reject that completely. The hon. Lady should look at the record of the previous Conservative Government, whom she supported.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What is the overall position of ethnic minority women as regards public appointments?
    Mrs. Roche: We want to look at that aspect. We shall try to publish some targets in the near future.

    British-Irish Council
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on his role in relation to the British-Irish Council. [23443]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State(Mr. John Prescott): I carry ministerial responsibility for the British-Irish Council and deputise for the Prime Minister at summit meetings when he is not able to attend.
    Mr. Amess: Why, before the Belfast agreement had been implemented, did the Government start making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA—concessions that were not required and have not been reciprocated—in terms of

    527
    special arrangements for their Members of Parliament to have offices in the House and an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Those matters have been addressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the House has been informed of the Government's position. It did not affect the decisions at the summit meetings.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The British-Irish Council is an executive body, but there is a de facto shadow parliamentary body: the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Unfortunately, Ulster Unionists will not attend its meetings because they see it as having come out of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Would not it be a good idea to move towards establishing it as a parliamentary wing of the British-Irish Council under the provisions of the Belfast agreement? Ulster Unionists could then join without a problem.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: My hon. Friend has expressed that view on a number of occasions. I personally take the view that the British-Irish Council is the best way to deal with those difficulties in Northern Ireland. That is the Government's position, and it is what we intend to do.
    Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for what he has said on this important topic. May I remind him that, as the Prime Minister and many other Ministers on all sides have rightly said, the Belfast agreement must be seen to be operating in all its particulars simultaneously? He will know that it was envisaged that the Council of the Isles would meet twice a year at summit level, but it has not yet been possible for it to do so. Is his aim and hope that it will meet twice at summit level this year?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It was the intention, as originally set out in the agreement, to meet twice a year. There have been certain difficulties: one of the meetings was cancelled because it would have taken place on the day of the sad death of the First Minister in Scotland. Of course, the difficulties of the discussions in Northern Ireland also meant that we could not hold the council meeting. It is our intention to hold meetings twice a year; the next meeting will be held in Jersey.

    Social Exclusion
    Roger Casale: What steps he is taking to promote better co-ordination between Government Departments in relation to combating social exclusion. [23444]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The social exclusion unit works with all other relevant Departments in developing policy to combat social exclusion. Part of the unit's implementation strategy includes establishing units in other Departments that can co-ordinate activity across Whitehall.
    Roger Casale: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with Churches Together in Wimbledon and many
    528
    other voluntary and charitable organisations in my constituency that we should continue to strengthen the role of the Government in tackling the plight of homelessness and rough sleepers in major cities, such as London, and that a joined-up approach to government, involving many Departments working together, may be essential to achieve lasting success in relation to those issues?
    Mrs. Roche: Yes. I congratulate the rough sleepers unit, led by Louise Casey, on its remarkable achievement—a 62 per cent. reduction in numbers. By March 2002, the unit will have provided more than 1,000 additional places in hostels. The joined-up approach has been achieved because different Departments—for example, the Ministry of Defence, which has done some very good work in this area—are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health to ensure that people engage in prevention work as well.
    Virginia Bottomley: Does the Minister agree that one of the factors that leads to social exclusion is inadequate mental health services for children and young people? Will she personally examine the system of funding young people's mental health services? Does she believe that there should be education, social services and health care, or it is that, at the lower end, the burden is placed on the Home Office because the young people become subject to prison sentences? In particular, will she reply to me about the funding of Young Minds—an excellent organisation that is unable to get funding from any of those different joined-up Departments?
    Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady makes a very serious point about the fact that this issue involves not just one Department; it goes across several Departments, which is why she may well be interested in several of the social exclusion unit's current projects, which range from the educational achievement of young people in care to ex-offenders. I undertake to write to her about the details of the funding issue that she raises, but a number of Departments have worked together to address the subject of young people, especially children at risk.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: What methodology is used to target social need and overcome social exclusion? Do the Government plan to revise the means by which social need is targeted?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. There are many reasons why people go in and out of poverty. Of course, income levels are part of that, so the most frequently used measure is that of households below 60 per cent. of median income, but there are other causes. For example, lack of skills or qualifications and poor health can have an effect, which is why a co-ordinated approach is needed.
    Mr. Tim Collins: I applaud the Government on their wish to tackle social exclusion. It is a noble objective but, as the Minister will recognise, it is important to judge it by results rather than by rhetoric. Will she reconfirm the commitment made by the Prime Minister in 1996
    "to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation"?

    529
    If she reconfirms that as a Government objective, will she share my disappointment that, in fact, the number of families sleeping in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has increased by 152 per cent. since 1997 to an all-time high?
    Mrs. Roche: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue given the position that his Government took on dealing with housing and homelessness. Of course, there is an obligation not only to tackle rough sleeping but to examine the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and to see what can be done about them. That is why the Government are engaging in a programme with social landlords to make sure that much more social housing is available.

    Broadband Networks
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress has been made in centralised procurement of broadband networks for Government use. [23445]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Broadband is a faster "always on" internet system that offers significant new benefits for individuals, businesses and users of public services. The public sector is the largest single consumer of broadband technology, so the Government are actively examining how that purchasing power might lever growth in the market more widely.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will have no doubt read in the Financial Times today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was speaking in South Korea, has commended the South Korean Government for their programme. They have invested £600 million in constructing a broadband network that is used by 8 million people. In Britain, only 600,000 people use broadband at present. Surely, the Government, who spend £2 billion through their various Departments to procure broadband services, should be getting together to make one procurement order that would, because of their purchasing power, drive up quality and spread the use of broadband. Can the Government not see themselves as a driving force for broadband initiatives if the private sector will not come to our rescue?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes entirely the right point. The Government are important not only as a regulator of this industry but as a consumer. A number of different infrastructure sharing opportunities exist, not least the academic networks and the investment that is being made in schools. Broadband is extremely important not because of the technology itself but because of what it can deliver in terms of new opportunities for learning and technology in the internet age.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister is absolutely right to point out the importance of broadband. However, with the devolution of government to regions outside London, is he aware that broadband is not available widely throughout the United Kingdom? What are the Government going to do about that? Does he recall that the Prime Minister boasted in 1997 that broadband
    530
    would be available to all throughout the United Kingdom by 1999? That has not happened. Is that yet another gimmicky promise not met?
    Mr. Leslie: Much as the hon. Gentleman might want the telecommunications industry to be wholly owned by the Government, the broadband capital investment network is led by industry itself. Although a significant proportion of rural areas in particular are not covered at present, 60 per cent. of the population have potential access to broadband even though only 1 per cent. sign up to it at present.

    Civil Emergencies
    Joan Ryan: What the role of his Department is in responding to civil emergencies. [23446]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The role of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate efforts across government to improve the effectiveness of civil contingency and emergency planning.
    Joan Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the role of local authorities in dealing with civil emergencies and tell us whether he has had any contact with them on this issue since the tragic events of 11 September? Furthermore, will he comment on the resource issue that would face a local authority dealing with a civil emergency?
    Mr. Leslie: This is a useful opportunity to pay tribute to the many emergency planning officers who work extremely hard in local authorities throughout the country to make sure that our emergency plans are up to date and are regularly exercised. They do a fantastic job. In the light of the events of 11 September, we have updated our guidance and are making sure that we are in regular discussions with local authorities and, in particular, with the Local Government Association.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: For those of us living in Devon, the foot and mouth crisis in the past year came pretty close to a civil emergency. Will the Minister today agree to the Government holding a full public inquiry into the disease so that lessons can be learned for the future, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, a number of inquiries are under way into foot and mouth. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat seeks to ensure that all the different Departments that take a lead in tackling such emergencies have improved co-ordination so that we can be more effective in future.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the advice that the Civil Aviation Authority has given on overfly zones, in particular on the incidence of aircraft that have been held

    531
    in holding patterns over high-risk sites? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there are more appropriate places to hold aircraft, even though our airspace is very crowded.
    Mr. Leslie: I shall certainly discuss with officials the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has been considering the issue of aviation and the possible vulnerability of key sites, especially major chemical sites, for example. We have to be vigilant and ensure that we reduce vulnerability wherever possible.
    Alistair Burt: The Minister may not be aware of a recent incident in Sandy in my constituency when a package that was suspected of containing anthrax caused a full-scale public emergency—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise.
    Alistair Burt: In the course of dealing with the necessary decontamination and the obvious personal aspects of that, no woman officer was available in the emergency team, which caused understandable distress. Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that there is a solution to that problem, so that women officers are present whenever possible to deal with women who have been evacuated and need decontamination?
    Mr. Leslie: This is an extremely important point. The guidance issued to reflect the chemical and biological risk that was perceived to be a problem in respect of postal services needs to include the way in which emergency services respond. There is no specific credible threat at present to the postal service in general, but the Cabinet Office is always reviewing the adequacy of our advice to the authorities on such matters.

    Global Poverty
    Linda Gilroy: What recent visits he has made to promote an international approach to tackling global poverty. [23448]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): Tackling global poverty will be a key focus of the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg later this year, better known as the Rio 10 conference. I discussed preparations for the summit on my recent visit to the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that environmental issues are closely related to tackling poverty, especially with regard to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol? Will he assure the House that he will continue to work on those issues, which are as important to tackling poverty as they are to sustainability issues at home?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the global problems that require global solutions and global travel—[interruption]—whether Opposition Members like that or
    532
    not. I think that the global travels of the Prime Minister, especially in respect of Afghanistan, have been to the benefit of world peace and prosperity.
    The conference on sustainability is not only about the environment, which follows on from the Rio conference, but about how we deal with poverty. Frankly, if we gave as much priority and commitment to dealing with poverty and prosperity as we have rightly given to combating terrorism, the world would be a better place.
    Tony Baldry: Is it not a sad fact that according to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics, the wealthier nations of the world collectively are now spending less in real terms on international development than they were 10 years ago? If we are determined to tackle global poverty, could not the Government at least give a lead by setting a clear date by which they will meet the 0.7 per cent. target of Government wealth to be allocated to international development?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman's point about average spending on aid by all countries is right, but this country's spending has increased. We are showing leadership in that respect. The proportion of spending on aid decreased under the previous Administration. The resources necessary to deal with poverty amount to about £50 billion. At the Monterrey conference in March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be closely involved in efforts to marshal such support in a new trust fund, which he suggested, so that we can make dealing with poverty a priority, as we have done in respect of terrorism.
    Mr. John Hume: Does the Minister agree that although it is essential and correct to give humanitarian aid to countries suffering from severe poverty, if we want to give them long-term and permanent assistance so that they can rely on themselves, the best way to assist them is to help them set up permanent education systems for the whole community? Does he agree that the point is strongly exemplified by Afghanistan, where 85 per cent. of women cannot read or write because they have not been allowed to go to school, and 65 per cent. of men cannot read or write because going to school is not permanent? Education will create societies where people can provide for themselves.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, the objectives that have been set by the United Nations identify education as well as poverty relief as important millennium objectives. We have set targets; we are discussing finance on a global scale to enable us to achieve them.

    Ministers' Code of Conduct
    Mr. Andrew Turner: When the code of conduct for Ministers was last revised. [23449]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): A revised ministerial code was issued in July 2001, which took into account the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Administration and the Committee on Standards in Public

    533
    Life. Since then, in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code, which now requires that all announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
    Mr. Turner: When, then, will the rest of the code be enforced? We had Ministers with houses paid for by colleagues, Ministers with houses belonging to their wives, and Ministers with flats belonging to railwaymen's unions. If hon. Members have an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is it not even more important that Ministers, who have executive responsibility, should have an independent commissioner for the standards that they are supposed to uphold?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: We heard lots of allegations, without a great deal of substance.
    Michael Fabricant: There was in The Guardian.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: It being in The Guardian is hardly the highest of recommendations. That is me finished again tomorrow. We have Select Committees that make recommendations, and they made recommendations about how the code should apply. I am glad that in a recent statement the Select Committee welcomed a number of changes that we have made to the code of conduct. For example, the code should be a framework for decisions. The seven principles of public life that are applied to public servants should now apply to Ministers. Further recommendations were welcomed. There was a gap, as the Select Committee pointed out—for example, we rejected the recommendation that the Prime Minister should appear before the Select Committee, and that there should be a separate ombudsman. We have made clear in our reports the matters on which we disagree with the Committee.
    Mr. Tim Collins: On the enforcement of the code of conduct for Ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister will recall that the code contains a reference to the requirement for Ministers to comply in full with the Register of Members' Interests. Is it not regrettable that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has still failed to comply with the finding of the Standards and Privileges Committee that he should register his RMT property connection? Will not many commuters believe that the Government's spineless refusal to take action against this week's shameful rail strikes is connected with that link at the highest level to the RMT?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman has been geed up to be a little more aggressive in his questioning, but he is not consistent with the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am going to answer. The allegations made by Opposition Members were investigated by the Committee and rejected. All three accusations investigated by Mrs. Filkin and put before the Committee were rejected. In those circumstances, I was not required to register the interest.
    534
    The Committee invited me to do so and I talked to the Chairman about the matter, but since I had not committed an offence, why should I register the interest?

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 January.
    The Prime Minister(Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Carmichael: Will the Prime Minister give a commitment today to pay the Scottish Executive the estimated £20 million that will be saved by the Department for Work and Pensions in payments of attendance allowance as a result of the Scottish Executive's decision to introduce free personal care for the elderly in Scotland? Is it not deeply ironic that the political courage shown by the Labour party in Scotland, along with Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Executive, should be met with such cynical swindling by none other than the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are increasing enormously the amount of health service and social care spending in Scotland, as elsewhere. That is of course a vast increase over anything that the Liberal Democrats have ever asked for. Secondly, let me assure him that as part of devolution it is of course possible for Scotland to take a different view of the best way in which to spend the resources that we have.
    We believe that the best way is to put money into free nursing care, which we are doing, but to use the rest of the money to build up the social service infrastructure in England, which we are doing also. We do not, however, believe that the way that the Scottish Executive have taken is right for England. That surely is a consequence of devolution. In both Scotland and England, however, the amount of resources going into social care and the national health service is increasing massively.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: The Prime Minister will be familiar with the tragic killing in Macedonia of paratrooper Ian Collins in August last year while on a NATO peacekeeping mission. My right hon. Friend will have seen in the national press today that Ian Collins' mother, father and girlfriend are out in Macedonia at the moment seeking justice from the Macedonian judicial system. According to the Ministry of Defence, they are being escorted by Mr. John Mitchell, the vice-consul out there. I ask my right hon. Friend to do

    535
    all in his power to ensure that my constituents receive justice for the tragic death that occurred on such a gallant mission.
    The Prime Minister: I totally share the concern of my hon. Friend and of his constituents at the way in which the issue has been handled and at the present outcome. We are in close contact with the family and also in close touch with the Macedonian authorities, and we will do everything we possibly can to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Who is in charge of transport policy?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that the Prime Minister has been away for a long time, but while he has been away, his transport policy has descended into farce. He has Lord Birt, with all his great expertise on railways, in charge of long-term transport policy; he has a management consultant in charge of short-term transport policy; and today we read that his Deputy Chief Whip is in charge of negotiating with striking rail unions. Just what is the purpose of the Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to John Birt, it was announced back in September that he would undertake a lot of work for the policy unit in Downing street about long-term trends in the transport industry. Since Governments have had policy units, as far as I am aware, for decades, quite why that is inconsistent with having a Transport Secretary I do not know. Secondly, what the Transport Secretary does is provide the long-term investment for the railways—and also sort out the appalling mess that was left by railway privatisation.
    We on this side of the House are in favour of that long-term extra investment in our railways and we believe that Railtrack could not go on as it was, getting billions and billions of pounds of public money and not delivering a decent service to passengers. Now, perhaps on those two issues—the extra investment and what should happen to Railtrack—the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The one thing that is absolutely clear about this Transport Secretary is that he is not there to make the trains run on time. The figures that are now available, which he stopped publishing, show before the strike, Connex South Eastern delays up 50 per cent., South West Trains delays up 70 per cent. and First Great Eastern Railways delays up 95 per cent. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that he was going to be in post for years and years. Surely, the Prime Minister knows that the only certainty is that, under him, the chaos on the railways will be in place for years and years.
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Oh no. I do not want the Prime Minister to miss this point. Is not it time that he sacked his Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is absolutely correct that after the Hatfield rail disaster—yes, it is true—reliability
    536
    went down very considerably. That happened for a very simple reason. After Hatfield, it became clear that the state of the railway infrastructure was far worse than anyone had ever imagined. That is the result of cumulated under-investment going back many years. Let me give Opposition Members the figures on investment. In the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government—this is at constant prices—there was investment of about £940 million a year. In the next eight years, there was £1.4 billion investment. In the first term of this Government, that rose to £2.2 billion. However, under the comprehensive spending review, for the next three years, it will be £4.4 billion, or three times the amount that the last Conservative Government put in.
    The difference between us, very simply, is that we believe that putting this extra investment into the railways is important. Let me read to the House, however, the policy of the Conservative party. The shadow Chancellor said:
    "I believe our aim should…be to reduce the proportion of national output taken towards the state by 35 per cent."
    The shadow Home Secretary said:
    "We would like to head downwards to 35 per cent. of GDP."
    The leader of the Conservative party said that
    "our target must…be the mid-30s as an overall percentage of public expenditure".—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1096.]
    If we had 35 per cent. of gross domestic product as the public spending target, it would mean £60 billion worth of cuts in investment—cuts that would wipe out the entirety of the extra investment in the railways. We believe in putting that investment in. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can try to shout me down, but let us understand the difference between the two parties. We believe that this extra investment should go in; let them state their position.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Linda Perham: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the success of the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, the Disabilities Trust and my constituents, Ivan and Charika Corea, in getting 2002 declared as autism awareness year? Will he ensure that the national and local bodies that are responsible for health, social services and education co-operate in the joined-up provision of services that autistic people and their families desperately need?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents and the organisations concerned. Autism awareness year should give us the opportunity to raise the awareness of this condition, which is very debilitating and is distressing for families; in addition, it should ensure that we can learn more about what causes autism. She will be pleased to know that, in addition to the measures being taken by the voluntary sector, the Government are putting more resources and research into exactly how autism occurs and how we should deal with it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I acknowledge the Government's shambolic

    537
    inheritance in terms of transport policy, but does the Prime Minister not feel the need to explain to people across the country why today, in year five of a Labour Government, with a generally benign economic scenario over that period and a three-figure Commons majority throughout, our transport policy is still a shambles?
    The Prime Minister: There are two reasons why the problems on the railways have arisen. The first is related to privatisation, which is generally accepted to have been a disaster. That is now being sorted out, with the new company being restructured, the new Strategic Rail Authority director and the new management in the company all in place now. It will be sorted out in the next few months. Secondly, under-investment in the railways went on for a considerable period, but that is now being made good. On Monday, the new Strategic Rail Authority director, Richard Bowker, will publish the forward investment plans for the railways.
    As I said a moment or two ago, after the Hatfield rail disaster it became obvious that the condition of the railways was far worse than people had thought. It could have been said that post-1997, the moment that we came to power, we should have realised that that privatisation could not work in any shape or form—[Interruption.] "Yes," one of the Conservatives says. Whoever we take criticism from about rail privatisation, I hope that we will not hear any from the Conservative party. We believed that it was better at least to give the system a chance to work, because of the upheaval that would be caused if we had to change it, as we are now having to, once it became clear that Railtrack was unsustainable. The extra investment will go in, the company will be restructured and it will be focused on improvements in the railways alone. I believe that those will happen in time.
    Mr. Kennedy: The whole country will share the Prime Minister's sense of entertainment about where the Conservatives come from on this issue; there is no doubt about that. In response to my question, however, he said two things. First, he said that in the next few months the problems would be sorted out once and for all. Last February, in reply to me during Prime Minister's questions, he said that rail services would be back to normal by Easter—one wonders which Easter he was referring to. Secondly, the Prime Minister talks about persistent under-investment, and he is correct—but what about the under-investment during the first four years of this Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the first four years of this Government. As I have just pointed out, the figures show that even in our first term we were spending—in investment, which of course means long lead times for new equipment and so on to kick in—about double what the Conservative Government were spending. Over the next three years that sum will rise to about three times what they were spending. I simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman that not merely are we spending far more than the Conservatives ever spent, and are due to spend more, but we are spending far more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: In anticipation of tomorrow's important debate, will the
    538
    Prime Minister consider what is the point of replacing a second Chamber that was rotten because of inherited patronage with a second Chamber that is rotten because of contemporary patronage?
    The Prime Minister: First, the independent Members of the House of Lords will be appointed by the independent commission. Secondly, the political appointments can be made in one of two ways. Those Members could be wholly elected—some people here in the House agree with that—or they could be appointed through the political parties. In either event, those would obviously be political appointments. That is a matter for the House to debate, and of course we will listen carefully to the House's views about the right way to proceed with House of Lords reform. However, I have to say to my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members that, listening to those views, it is clear that there are almost as many different views about what should happen with the House of Lords as there are Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Prime Minister aware that all his talk of billions of pounds, of percentages and of investment on the railways will be of little comfort to commuters in my constituency, whose service has deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate? He has been in charge for five years. Why does he think that Labour is so bad at improving public transport?
    The Prime Minister: As I pointed out a moment ago, the real fall-down in reliability came after the Hatfield rail disaster, when it was discovered that the state of the track was far worse than anyone had ever thought. At present, we also have the issue of strikes on the railways. I have to say that this is a totally unacceptable way to resolve disputes in this day and age. There exists in the agreement between the management and the unions the power for this matter to be referred to arbitration. I would have thought that that, rather than strike action, was a far better way to resolve this issue. In any event, the long-term future of the railways depends on extra investment and the sorting out of Railtrack, which we found, after Hatfield, was a company that simply could not go on in the same way as before. Both those things have to be done if the railways are to be put in order.
    Andy Burnham: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a growing problem in Leigh, and many towns like it, with gangs of youths who feel that they are above the law, damaging property and generally making people's lives a misery? Is he aware of the new policy being tested in my constituency by Greater Manchester police, in which calls from the public are prioritised and patrols are no longer sent in response to problems with teenage gangs of this kind? Does he share my concern that this sends out the wrong message to the public, and does he agree that our constituents want to see firm action against this type of behaviour remaining a high priority for the police?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that people want a high priority to be given to tackling street violence and antisocial crime. I know that the Home Secretary has asked for a report from the Greater Manchester police about the change in policy that

    539
    my hon. Friend has just outlined. However, extra measures are now proposed for youth justice and there will be an increase in police numbers coming about as a result of extra investment. I think that the Greater Manchester police will, in the end, have more police than ever before under this investment proposal, and I am sure that there will be measures on the way to tackle this problem. But in the end, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the whole community must be engaged in rooting out this behaviour.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister with responsibility for crime reduction has been quoted as saying:
    "I feel anxious about my family's safety and my own with growing street crime."
    Is the Minister right to be anxious?
    The Prime Minister: That will be overtaken by a letter from the Minister to the newspaper concerned, saying that he said no such thing.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If, apparently, the Minister said no such thing, was he not, in reality, in saying no such thing, correct in what he apparently did not say?
    Muggings are up by 40 per cent. The Home Office's own figures show that. Assaults are up by 20 per cent. and mobile phone thefts—about which the Minister apparently did not say anything—are up by a staggering 371 per cent. Is not the reality for the Prime Minister and his Government that they are failing to tackle violent crime and breaking their pledge to be tough on crime?
    The Prime Minister: No. The British crime survey figures show that crime is down overall. Indeed, crime is down very substantially since this Government came to office. Some of us remember that, under the last Conservative Government, crime doubled. Violent crime is down, and so is burglary and vehicle theft. There is a particular problem at the moment with street violence, especially in relation to mobile phones, and it is precisely for that reason that the Government are going to work with the industry and the police to make sure that we tackle the problem.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Only someone who has become so isolated from the general public could say that violent crime is down, when his own figures show that it is up. People feel the kind of fear about walking in their streets at night, which the Prime Minister no doubt does not understand. The figures also show that Londoners are five times more likely to suffer attacks of violent crime than those who live in New York, and three times more likely than those who live in Los Angeles. Now that the Prime Minister is back home, should he not stay home and get a grip?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to New York and so on, I think that those figures are wrong. In New York, the murder rate is about five times as high as in London. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in relation to the overall statistics for crime. The British crime survey—which the Conservatives have always said is the most accurate survey—shows that crime is down. [Interruption.] Those are the Home Office figures.
    540
    The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, to draw attention to a problem that the Government have also drawn attention to, which is the problem of street violence, particularly that involving youngster upon youngster in relation to mobile phones. We believe that there should be tougher sentences in respect of such crime, and more secure places. We are putting in the investment to provide those secure places. We are halving the time it takes to get persistent juvenile offenders to court, and that measure has now been completed.
    The new criminal justice legislation will consider the issue of bail in relation to such offences and more action against antisocial behaviour. There is more investment in closed circuit television, because that is proven to have an effect on reducing this type of crime. As a result of the extra investment, which was opposed by the Conservative party, there will be more police on our streets. That is a sensible way to deal with the problem.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the current difficulties facing the aerospace industry, which are due, at least in part, to the events of 11 September. Can he assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to assist that crucial industry with what we all hope will be short-term difficulties? In particular, will he have discussions with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Defence about the possibility of bringing forward projects that are already agreed, and awarding training grants, which would be very welcome?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we do two things. First, we must make provision to help the industry through the particular impact of 11 September. In so far as we are able, we are doing that. Some £40 million has gone to help the industry. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the aerospace and aviation industry in his constituency. We should try to bring forward some of the large contracts that are being placed abroad. I am pleased to say that we are doing well in that regard, but we will try to do more. The aerospace and aviation industry is an important part of this country's manufacturing base. It is highly skilled and highly sensitive to new technology, and we shall do everything we can to build on it.
    Mr. Graham Brady: During the Prime Minister's current visit to the United Kingdom, would he turn his attention to the case of my constituent, Mr. Gavin Burns, of which I have given him notice? The eye hospital in Manchester could save Mr. Burns's sight only by using photodynamic therapy at a cost to him of £7,500. Conventional laser treatment available on the NHS would have destroyed the centre of his one remaining good eye, leaving him unable to see the faces of his grandchildren. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is unacceptable that Mr. Burns and others like him should be forced to pay for treatment that is clearly and obviously necessary?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it is unacceptable that people are forced to pay for their treatment in that way, which is precisely why it is so important that we get the extra investment into the national health service and build up its capacity. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman

    541
    that, as the position of the Conservative party is to force people into private insurance, criticism from Conservative Members simply will not wash.
    Mr. Brady: What is the Prime Minister doing about the case of Mr. Bums?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing about it. We are putting extra investment into the national health service. I am afraid that, whatever he feels for his constituent, the position of the Conservative party is to take that investment back out again.
    Joan Ryan: Just four weeks ago, on 12 December, 13-year-old Martin Lamparter, who lived and went to school in my constituency, died in a tragic accident involving fireworks. His family are absolutely devastated. In the light of that terrible loss of a young life and the almost 1,000 firework-related injuries that occur each year, would the Prime Minister look again at whether the legislation that allows the retail sale of fireworks is adequate, and whether further measures could be taken to protect the public, especially young people, from the dangers that fireworks present?
    The Prime Minister: The risks associated with fireworks are very clear, as my hon. Friend says. Once the Government have the full statistics and the results of the survey of firework accidents that have occurred this year, we will certainly consider whether any changes are necessary. As a result of action that has been taken over many years, we have succeeded in reducing the number of accidents significantly, but if something remains to be done, once we have completed the survey and done the analysis of what changes need to be put in place, we will change the system even further.

    Congestion Charges
    Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the Government's action to consult on the introduction of congestion charges.
    The Prime Minister: The Government require local authorities to undertake full and effective consultation before seeking approval for any local congestion-charging scheme in England outside London. Consultations about London schemes are a matter for the Mayor.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister recall, during the London mayoral and Assembly elections, campaigning on a manifesto featuring his photograph and signature on the first page and, on the front, the words "New Labour, new London, no congestion charges"? What exactly does he mean by that?
    The Prime Minister: What I mean is that the decision is obviously for the Mayor to make. It will be for him to decide whether to introduce congestion charging. The Government's role is to ensure that any money used for congestion charging is put back into public transport. That, we believe, is the sensible way in which to proceed.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Now that the whole country is free of foot and mouth disease, what plans has my right hon. Friend to restore and support the tourism industry—particularly in my constituency and in north-west Wales, where tourism is vital to the lives of many citizens?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to ensure, by means of funds for the tourist boards not just in Wales but throughout the country, that we give a significant boost to British tourism. Spending on the advertising campaign will run into millions of pounds. It is having an impact, and I understand that the Welsh Assembly is making a further £2 million available to the Welsh tourist board to boost the industry specifically in Wales.
    Mr. John Baron: Having recently seen deprivation abroad, the Prime Minister knows that the European Union's overseas aid package is motivated by politics. Poland receives twice as much aid as the whole of Latin America and Asia combined. When will the Prime Minister stop the EU from playing petty politics with the poor of the world?
    The Prime Minister: The negotiations that are taking place with Poland about accession to the European Union will deal with many of those issues. We are in favour of European enlargement, and in favour of Poland's coming into the European Union. As for European policy as a whole, if we can make changes in the European Union's aid and development policy, it will be only because we have some influence within the European Union itself. The worst course that we could follow, in having that influence, would be to pursue the policies of isolationism that are exhibited constantly by the Conservative party, not least at this Question Time.
    Mr. Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the economic test currently faced by flood prevention schemes, and will know that many argue that it fails residents and businesses affected by flooding. Will he consider modernising the formula to take account of the huge social costs incurred by those affected, and to make it easier to establish flood defence schemes for residents and businesses in such places as Worcester?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are looking at ways in which we can improve the effectiveness of the resources that we put in for protection against flooding, but we are increasing those resources significantly, by some £100 million or more. I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's point, but I must tell him that in the end the important thing is for the Government to make the investment, and for local people to make the final decision on how that investment can best be used.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that no Minister in his Government played any part, through pressure or influence of any kind, in the effective dismissal of Elizabeth Filkin, and that her findings against the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in his Government

    543
    played no part in it either? When will he force the Deputy Prime Minister to abide by his ministerial code, and register his pecuniary interest in the RMT?
    The Prime Minister: As I heard just before the beginning of Prime Minister's Question Time, the Deputy Prime Minister dealt very comprehensively with the usual rubbish from the Conservative party on this issue. In respect of Mrs. Filkin, if the hon. Gentleman has any such evidence he should present it to the proper authorities rather than engaging in the usual Conservative party smear.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: It was great to see my right hon. Friend in Afghanistan earlier this week—[Laughter.]—encouraging our very brave troops, but is it possible to employ our
    544
    peacekeeping troops in an aid programme? I understand that many of our aid programmes are being hampered by bandits. It would be extremely helpful if particular use could be made of our troops' expertise.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that the troops reduce the possibilities of instability. However, I was fascinated by Conservative Members shouting at my hon. Friend for saying that we should support the British troops in Afghanistan and what they are doing. Of course, that is part of the Conservative party's new policy. It is against us being part of the security force in Afghanistan. It is against us being in Sierra Leone. It is against us being in Macedonia. It is against us being anywhere near India and Pakistan, so it appears. It is against us being in Europe. It is the Howard Hughes school of diplomacy, but it is not very effective.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you give special allowance to the Prime Minister, but you have ruled on previous occasions that it is not the role of those on the Government Front Bench to talk about Conservative party policy, or at least their version of it. Earlier in Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister spoke for over one minute giving his incorrect version of Conservative party policy, and he repeated it for the final 30 seconds of the session. Surely there must be a limit to which he can abuse Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will let the Speaker run Prime Minister's Question Time, that will be very helpful indeed.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised with the Prime Minister a question of constituency significance, of which I had given him prior notice, relating to a particular constituent. Is it not the usual courtesy in the House that when a Member has given notice of such a specific case, that Member has a right to expect a response on it? The Prime Minister did not even allude to the case of my constituent. I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am greatly dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's response and that I will seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Right to Self-employment
3.32 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about self-employment.
The Bill, which particularly creates the right to self-employment, is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the chairman and both vice-chairmen of the all-party small business group. I take the opportunity to thank the many Members who have offered their support.
The self-employed are vital to our economy both nationally and locally. Numbering in excess of 4 million people, they comprise of owner-managers of shops, factories and farms as well as freelances working in the media, information technology and the creative industries. Indeed, it could be said that Members of the House can technically be included among their ranks, so I guess I should declare an interest. Together, those 4 million people are leading creators of this country's wealth. They provide most of the local services that we use and employ approximately half of those working in the private sector.
At the same time, because the nature of work is changing, self-employment is becoming an increasingly popular option. The days of working from nine to five are gone, and the impact of technology means that when and where we work is constantly changing. Self-employment has the flexibility to respond to those changes, which is why it is increasingly the first option for many people at work.
A good example of that is the recent huge rise in the number of self-employed women, who have set up their own businesses and in the process smashed the glass ceiling. That is a wonderful market example of challenging discrimination. However, self-employed people matter not merely for their economic work. For me, the self-employed embody a value, which is one of the reasons why I came into the House in the first place: it is the simple idea that, no matter who one is and what one's background, if one has the ability, the ambition and the will to work, one can be one's own boss and make one's way in the world.
Sadly, in this country we do not seem to realise that full potential. Despite the excellent work of organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the self-employed continue to be discriminated against, whether it is by high street banks unfairly refusing mortgages or by the state handing out inferior benefits. The root of that negative attitude lies in the very status of self-employment. The onus lies with an individual wishing to become self-employed to prove his status. That is not, as it may seem, a simple process, because the regulations are based not on consistently applied criteria but on ever-changing case law.
Thus many self-employed people have to prove and re-prove their status every year. Indeed, some have to do so for each contract. The House will recognise that that is an unreasonable requirement. After all, why should a fisherman or, for that matter, a freelance writer, have closely to follow the legal ins and outs and the latest verdicts, and then try to determine whether those apply to him or her now or in the future? Accumulatively,

547
that reliance on changing case law represents an appalling waste of time and money. For example, if only half of the 4 million self-employed lose two hours a month in dealing with that problem, that represents more than 3 million working days lost to the economy every year.
In short, the current approach is confusing, wasteful and adversarial. It is also inherently unfair, because it bases the burden of proof not on the state but on the individual. The purpose of my Bill is to reverse that situation by creating a right to become self-employed, removing the confusion of ever-changing rules, and switching the burden of proof from the individual to the state. In practical terms, my Bill would achieve that by requiring individuals to register as self-employed, with Government agencies then being entitled to challenge that registration for a period of up to, say, six months.
By registering, an individual would make an informed and positive choice, and registration itself would remove the need to continue to rely on ever-changing case law, with all the uncertainty and waste that that creates. Equally, by registering, an individual would recognise both the freedom and the responsibility that self-employment brings. Rights must balance benefits with burdens.
Let me offer two examples, one of a burden and one of a benefit. First, when an individual registers, he or she will be required to have insurance cover appropriate to the nature of their work. That would be particularly relevant to those working in a hazardous environment, such as road haulage or agriculture. Conversely, registration could allow people to opt out of paying class 4 national insurance contributions, especially given that state benefits are fully paid for by class 2 contributions.
That right to self-employment would be enormously beneficial. It would give people a real freedom of choice while emphasising their responsibilities; it would bring relative certainty for most small enterprises—an essential ingredient for good business; it would save millions of productive working days, and thereby millions of pounds in lost revenue for the Government; and it would
548
significantly reduce the need for the Government constantly to redefine self-employment in order to regulate and tax that activity. There could be wider benefits from registration in the workplace, which Ministers may wish to consider, such as trying to define a worker and an employee.
The self-employed lie at the heart of our economic life. They are the source of most private sector jobs; they provide the services upon which most of us rely; and they represent a vital source of innovation. Equally, social and economic changes are likely to increase the demand for self-employment. As a recent survey by the Prince's Trust has shown, record numbers of school leavers now want to be their own boss when they enter work. They know that in a highly competitive, global economy, in which footloose multinationals regularly downsize—as the term has it—it is perhaps self-employment that will give them some measure of control over their working lives. For many of them, as the next generation of workers, it is the way ahead. That is why it is now time to update how the state interacts with the self-employed.
We need to move away from a confusing, unfair and adversarial approach and towards giving people the right to choose how they work and the freedom and responsibility of that choice. The purpose of the Bill is to provide that right. It would not solve all of the problems in the relationship between Government and the self-employed. However, it represents a vital first step in overhauling how we treat the self-employed and I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Richard Bacon, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Peter Duncan, Brian Cotter, Mr. Mark Francois, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Adrian Hook, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. George Osborne and Mr. Alistair Burt.

RIGHT TO SELF-EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mark Priskaccordingly presented a Bill to make provision about self-employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 79].
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENSION OF AMNESTY PERIOD
      3.42 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      `(3) Subsections (2)(b) and (3) are omitted.'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      `(3A) Subsections (2)(b) and (3) shall continue to have effect in respect of offences listed in the Schedule to the 1997 Act relating to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, with the words "later than 27th February 2005" substituted for the words "more than five years after the day on which this Act is passed".
      (3B) In respect of other offences listed in the Schedule to the 1997 Act, subsections (2)(b) and (3) are omitted.'.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): Happy new year.
      Mr. Davies: I wish the Secretary of State and his colleagues a happy new year also, and we all hope that the people of Northern Ireland will have a happy new year. They certainly deserve a good new year after many years of difficulties and sacrifices, as well as continued disappointments in the implementation of the Belfast agreement, which is one of the matters with which we shall deal this afternoon.
      I welcome the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, to the Front Bench today and I am glad that she will conduct the case for the Government. She is a competent and experienced parliamentarian, although she will find that her pitch has been somewhat queered by a most extraordinarily and no doubt inadvertently frank statement on the subject of deadlines by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I shall have occasion to refer to that point later.
      It is common ground between the Opposition and the Government that the Belfast agreement should be upheld and implemented urgently. Of course, it is not common ground that the Government should have chosen to go beyond the Belfast agreement and, before it is even implemented, to make a whole raft of new unilateral, gratuitous concessions. We are concerned that, by so doing, the Government have moved away from the basis of bipartisanship in Northern Ireland to which we are much attached. It is common ground that the Belfast agreement must be supported, and we wish to do everything possible to ensure that it is implemented.
      550
      3.45 pm
      I believe totally in the Government's sincerity in wanting to bring about the implementation of the Belfast agreement. However, it is very much a matter of judgment as to whether they have conducted themselves in a very intelligent way in seeking to ensure that their influence maximised the chance that the Belfast agreement was implemented earlier rather than later. Moreover, if decommissioning was going to come about within the two-year time scale laid down in the Belfast agreement, was it sensible to release all the terrorist prisoners before even a start had been made on decommissioning? That too is a matter of judgment.
      We have been over that ground already, and will return to it. I think that history will be much less kind to the Government in that regard than they like to be to themselves. Nevertheless, it is very much common ground that decommissioning is essential, and it is one of the pillars of the Belfast agreement. All those who want peace and normalisation in that part of our country are obliged to do everything possible to ensure that decommissioning comes about, and that it does so earlier rather than later.
      The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill. If we want the rapid implementation of the Belfast agreement and the completion of decommissioning, is it more sensible to bring forward a Bill now that extends by five years the special regime of amnesty for decommissioning, or should the extension be for a lesser amount of time? We suggest that the extension should be for one year.
      The amendment turns on that question, as does the whole debate in this House about the Bill, as there is no argument about the fundamental necessity of achieving decommissioning. Although our approaches and methods may differ, I am sure that the willingness to complete the difficult but vital process of decommissioning is sincere among hon. Members of all parties.
      However, is it more sensible to set a deadline of five years rather than of one, and will that five-year deadline make the best possible contribution to rapid progress? Those questions must be asked, as the matter is somewhat counter-intuitive. One can never be certain of achieving anything in this life, least of all in Northern Irish politics at the present time. I shall therefore go through the only possible justifications for the course adopted by the Government in bringing to the House a Bill that extends the amnesty regime for five years, even though some of those justifications are merely theoretical.
      I should not be at all surprised to discover that the Minister of State, when she reads the briefing notes for her speech in response to this debate, will say that the Government are obliged to extend the deadline and that it is not realistic to suppose that decommissioning will be completed by 27 February. We concur with that, even though the Belfast agreement specified that decommissioning should have been completed more than a year and a half ago. I expect too that the Minister will say that the Bill that established the regime to enable decommissioning to take place—by providing the necessary amnesties and so forth—was also designed to last for five years. I expect that she will ask why the Government should make a change and renew those provisions for a shorter length of time.
      It seems to me extraordinarily naive to look at matters in that way, but the explanation may well be that the Government are merely taking out of the drawer the Bill

      551
      that was introduced at the end of the previous Conservative Administration and carrying it forward for another five years and that they have given no thought as to whether five years is an appropriate length of time. I find it hard to believe that anyone could take that argument seriously, but it needs to be dealt with. As I doubt that I shall catch your eye later in the debate, Sir Alan, I shall deal with it now, pre-emptively.
      The answer is very simple. Five years ago, we were right at the beginning of the decommissioning and peace process. Indeed, the Belfast agreement had not been secured at that time, nor anything like it. The Bill that became the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was introduced, probably more in hope than in expectation, by the previous Conservative Administration, and was supported by the then Labour Opposition. The idea was to create a framework so that if it were possible to get an agreement, decommissioning could take place and the modalities, the international commission and the appropriate legal regime could be established.
      If a Bill is introduced in that way—more in hope than in expectation—to provide a framework for a process that had not even begun or led to an initial agreement on decommissioning, quite a long time has to be provided. It was sensible and responsible to provide a framework for five years, renewable on an annual basis. I do not think that anyone would have quarrelled with that approach at the time, and I certainly have no quarrel with it in retrospect. However, the situation today is profoundly different.
      The Belfast agreement, now in place, provided for the whole process of decommissioning to be completed within two years, by July 2000. Yet we are now a year and a half away from that deadline and more than three and a half years away from the Belfast agreement itself. There has been only one small act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA and one small act, right at the beginning, by one of the loyalist paramilitary organisations. There has been nothing else to show for it in three and a half years.
      In those circumstances, to come back to the House with a Bill that provides a deadline of five years seems extraordinary. The Government seem to be saying, "We don't mind that no progress has been made over the past five years. Let's simply start again." That is an extraordinary approach, which would not be taken seriously by anybody who looked at the matter objectively to decide whether the Government were acting in a business-like and sensible fashion.
      The second argument for the Bill has been put forward in the media. The Government have used it in their background briefings, as did the Secretary of State, at least by implication, in his introductory remarks on Second Reading. The argument is that this is not a five-year deadline but a one-year deadline, renewable up to five years. To make that statement would be to risk not being taken seriously in the House, when we know that the procedure for dealing with statutory instruments is an unedifying farce. When the Government, with their large majority, introduce a Bill that provides for a new regime for five years and say that it will be renewed at the end of every year and could theoretically be thrown out by Parliament under the statutory instrument procedure,
      552
      that is a fundamentally bogus statement. When the Government give a five-year deadline, they mean it to be for five years.
      Even more important than the credibility of such a measure in the House is its credibility outside the House. In Northern Ireland, specifically among the paramilitary organisations that need to take part in and complete the decommissioning process, only one conclusion can be drawn from the signals that the Government are sending by the way in which they have drafted the Bill: they are setting a final deadline of five years. We started with a five-year regime, which is now being renewed for a further five years. As I said on Second Reading, that sends the paramilitary organisations the simple message that there is no great urgency about decommissioning, that they can take their time about it and that the Government do not expect them to make rapid progress.
      It seems thoroughly regrettable and reprehensible that the Government should be sending such signals. It is deeply disappointing to all those in Northern Ireland, in both communities, who have been told ever since the Belfast agreement that the sacrifices they made would at least mean that the gun, the bullet and the arsenals of Semtex and weapons would be taken out of the system within a specific time. That is not happening and the deadline for that to happen is being extended.
      There is a third possible explanation for what the Government are doing and why they are insisting on a time scale of five years, although I hope that they will change their mind during the debate.
      If that explanation is true, and I am increasingly fearful that it is, it is extremely depressing: the five-year deadline the perverse signal that is being sent to the paramilitaries—did not come about owing to a fit of absence of mind or to naivety, but is part and parcel of a process that the Government were, perhaps involuntarily, sucked into during their negotiations, especially with Sinn Fein-IRA.
      Before Christmas, I did what I could to draw the attention of the House to part of that lamentable process whereby, even though the Belfast agreement has not been implemented and so little progress on decommissioning has been made, the Government decided that it is sensible to start offering a whole new set of unreciprocated, unilateral concessions to republicanism in Northern Ireland, and to Sinn Fein-IRA in particular. One of those concessions is the award of special status for Sinn Fein-IRA MPs to come to this place and enjoy some of the facilities of the Palace of Westminster as well as public money, without taking their seats. Other concessions were set out in the Weston Park agreement: for example, the promise of new inquiries and of amnesties for on-the-run terrorists.
      Against that background, it was decided—because the general policy is to go soft on Sinn Fein-IRA—that it would not be nice to tell them to hurry up with decommissioning, and that that would be unfriendly and hostile. It would actually make a demand of them rather than giving them a concession. It is part and parcel of that policy of appeasement—a word I use advisedly, as I fear that is indeed what the policy is—that the Bill sets out a five-year deadline that is difficult to explain on any rational basis.
      Mr. Hugo Swire: Just before Christmas, we were informed by the Secretary of State that, in the

      553
      mind of General de Chastelain, decommissioning to date was significant—although we were never told what "significant" actually meant, for reasons that I can understand. If decommissioning to date really has been significant, why do we need to discuss extensions to the process of one, two or five years?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend's logic is irrefutable. If "significant" actually meant large progress—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way.
      If "significant" means that progress has been so great that a substantial proportion of the ground has already been covered during the past five years—or rather the three and three quarter years since the Belfast agreement—why do we need a further five years? If it is logical to suppose that "significant" means that 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the ground has been covered, we should hardly need five more years to complete the process.
      My hon. Friend touches on an important matter that goes to the heart of the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in the whole process: the transparency of the process and the extent to which people can follow what is going on. If I catch your eye when we discuss new clause 1, Sir Alan, I hope that we can go into that matter in more detail.
      Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he and his party object to the extension on principle, or is a limited extension acceptable? In that case, we are simply discussing how long the IRA should be given.
      Mr. Davies: Strictly speaking, the argument is one of practicality and pragmatism rather than of principle. I tried to make it clear when I began my remarks that there is no difference between us and the Government on the principle that decommissioning is required. It is a good thing and it should be advanced as much as possible. However, there are important differences of judgment between us as to how we can maximise its progress. Those are important issues of practical judgment.
      There is no difference between us as to the desirability of decommissioning or, as I have already made clear, as to support for the Belfast agreement and for the process itself. Decommissioning is an essential part of that. So if the hon. Gentleman has in mind the analogy of Bernard Shaw and the actress, we are just talking about amounts. We are talking about a year or five years, which is the purpose of debating the amendment, but that may make a material difference to the incentives applied to the paramilitary organisations that need to decommission, in relation to the amount of time that they take to carry out that process.
      4 pm
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leading me naturally to the heart of the argument—there is such a difference of judgment between us, and Conservative Members believe that deadlines are important and that they can influence people. That is true generally; it is true of the way in which the European Union, businesses and many human institutions work. It is certainly true of Northern Ireland's history. No one with even a passing
      554
      familiarity with its history could deny that deadlines have played an enormously important part in the progress that has been made there—including, of course, in negotiating the Belfast agreement.
      We believe that deadlines are in themselves very important factors, but of course they are not the whole story. Other influences, pressures, incentives and disincentives will apply to people, but all other things being equal, we have no doubt that whether deadlines exist and what those deadlines are make a difference. I notice that no Labour Member has sought to intervene to dispute that proposition.
      Let me make a second proposition, to which the Conservative party also holds. It is very simple: shorter deadlines tend to concentrate people's minds. Shorter deadlines tend to make the implementation process shorter; longer deadlines do the opposite. They tend to dissolve any sense of urgency, and they tend to extend the time that people take to complete the tasks to which they are committed. Again, that sounds like a simple proposition, and no Labour Member has sought to catch my eye to contradict it.
      The remarkable thing is that the Secretary of State agrees precisely with the logic of what I am saying. He acknowledged that, perhaps inadvertently, in the House on 17 December. I shall observe the normal courtesy by citing the Hansard column reference. He said:
      "I recognise that some say that we need to have deadlines and that without pressure the Provisionals will not move. Some people will point to occasions in the past few years when we have achieved progress only by taking matters right to the wire."
      This is the important part of the quotation. He continued:
      "I understand that argument, although I have to say that the Provisionals are not the only people in Northern Ireland who regularly take matters to the wire."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 49.]
      So the Secretary of State accepts that the Provisionals and other people in Northern Ireland take matters to the wire. I shall give way to him if he contests this interpretation of his words, but it is blatantly clear that the phrase "taking matters to the wire" simply means that people take advantage of whatever deadlines exist. It follows inexorably that if a deadline is extended, the time people take to complete the task for which the deadline has been set is extended; and if a deadline is reduced—all other things being equal—the time they take is reduced.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Jane Kennedy): The hon. Gentleman keeps regretting the fact that no Labour Member has leapt up to intervene on the specific points that he makes, but does he accept that I am listening very carefully to him developing his argument, and I hope to address some of those points in responding to this debate? He said earlier that, in principle, there is nothing between us and that we are debating the practicalities of the proposals. Does he also accept that the practicality and usefulness of deadlines per se divide us?
      Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that point, and I shall listen with equal attention to her remarks. I have already said—I totally accept this—that we are talking about practicalities, but judgment about practicalities is absolutely at the heart of competence and effectiveness in government. It is at the heart of what we should be discussing in the Chamber. We cannot allow

      555
      the Government unthinkingly to renew the Bill with a five-year deadline because, as I have suggested, there was a five-year deadline before. It is clear to us that a deadline of five years is utterly inappropriate to a process that is already overdue by more than a year and a half.
      In response to the Minister's point, I repeat that we are talking about practicalities and about a judgment as to what is a sensible, businesslike and responsible approach to a vitally important problem. There is the practical issue, which is vital, of the rate of progress of decommissioning and the date on which decommissioning will be complete. I hope that we shall have an opportunity later to focus a little more on that subject. However, there is also the issue of the confidence that is created in the meantime on both sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland—confidence in the reality, integrity and transparency of the process and in the extent to which people can take seriously the prospect of moving to a democracy free from the threat of the gun and Semtex.
      Although such issues are practical, they are enormously important to the peace process as a whole. All the policies that may be devised to achieve peace in Northern Ireland can be brought to naught if we are not extremely careful each time we deal with such a delicate matter as decommissioning and the regime to bring it about. We must be careful to structure the pattern of incentives and disincentives that will be applied to all who have to take part in the most rational and effective fashion.
      I have made it clear that we believe that deadlines are important, and the Government have not contested that. I have made it plain that they have got it quite wrong in allowing another five years and, so far, we have not heard any justification for that. The Minister promises that there will be some justification, and let us hope that that is so. We will listen to what she says. However, at the moment, we are extremely concerned about the whole drift of Government policies and about what we think is an important misjudgment that has been expressed on the face of the Bill. However, it can be corrected and I hope that it will be corrected by the Committee accepting our amendments.
      I have already carefully said that deadlines are important, but they are only one aspect of the process. They are only one—although an important one—of the pressures that can be applied to ensure that we have earlier and more certain decommissioning and that it is less probable that it will never be completed or will take longer.
      As I said on Second Reading, I believe that it is likely that there will be further acts of decommissioning. I said on that occasion—I stand by my judgment—that there is a reasonable expectation that Sinn Fein, for reasons connected entirely with its prospects in the Irish elections in May, may feel it necessary to make at least a symbolic further act of decommissioning between now and then. There is no doubt that the Americans played an absolutely critical part in securing the act of decommissioning that took place at the end of October, and the timely application of pressure from that quarter may bring about another act of decommissioning at some time.
      Of course, other instruments can be applied—and not necessarily by us. The two instruments that I have just mentioned are a function either of Irish domestic politics
      556
      or of the policies of the United States Administration. However, it is our responsibility to make sure that the instruments that are in the hands of the British Government and the British Parliament are used most effectively. That is where our concern lies.
      I wish to make a final point about a matter that has concerned me the more in that I think that the Government have not sufficiently recognised a certain danger. It is sensible in life to put oneself in the shoes or, as far as possible, in the mind of a particular opponent or counterpart in any negotiating process. I wonder whether the Government have done that effectively because, in the case of Sinn Fein-IRA, if they had they would realise that there might be reasons for them to decommission, some of which I have mentioned. However, one strong reason, which unfortunately has been greatly strengthened by the Government's recent conduct, for spinning out the process and not completing decommissioning until the Greek calends is that that tactic is an effective way of securing concessions.
      Lamentable though the situation is, far from the British Government being able to put pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, the fact is that Sinn Fein-IRA sit on their weapons and do not implement their obligations under the Belfast agreement. The Government then go to them and say, "Look. There is no progress on Belfast. We are very worried about that. What can we do to increase momentum and help you?" Naturally, Sinn Fein-IRA ask for concessions, which the Government give.
      Sinn Fein-IRA still do not decommission, however, or, if they do, it is a minimal act. They wait the maximum amount of time before doing anything else because they expect the Government to offer more concessions. That is the history of the past few months—of Weston Park and of the lamentable concessions that we made to Sinn Fein-IRA MPs to come here on the basis of special status. I repeat that I would be only too glad if they took their seats on the same basis as everyone else, but that is not want they want to do and not what is happening.
      The Government have sadly got themselves into a position in which they are negotiating in the wrong direction. Instead of using the instruments that are available to them to put pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, they throw them away, in the same way as they release prisoners willy-nilly despite no progress in decommissioning. The Government then allow Sinn Fein-IRA to turn the tables on them and say, "Right. You want more decommissioning? You think that you've already paid for that in the Belfast agreement, but no: we both accept that you've got to make more concessions on top of Belfast. So we would like the next one please." That has been the history of the subterranean negotiations over the past few months between Sinn Fein-IRA and the Government.
      All the public manifestations of those negotiations are regrettable and some of them are discreditable. We have debated them in the House, especially in the two debates before Christmas. I beg the Government, in the interests of Northern Ireland, the peace process and any value that they share with me, to think again and stop this nonsense. They need to start saying to Sinn Fein-IRA, "We are sorry. We have an agreement. You must implement it in full before any further concessions are made or before we are prepared to talk about making any further moves on our side."

      557
      I put it to the Government most forcefully, and believe that I am right to do so, that there is no purpose in having an agreement with anyone if the other side is not going to implement it and asks for more concessions before it carries out its share, as outlined in the initial agreement. That is a hopeless way to conduct a negotiation in any context of life. It is especially regrettable and irresponsible when so many important things are at stake, such as people's lives and peace and democracy in a part of our country.
      The matter is not technical, but practical. It relates to a practical judgment about how to conduct a negotiation in such circumstances. It has enormous consequences that will concern everyone in the country and it is important that we get it right. The debate is crucial. We shall all listen with bated breath to the Minister and I hope that even at this eleventh hour she may have had a slight change of mind.
      Lembit Öpik: I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the issues raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I listened with great interest. His crucial point, which he kindly confirmed in response to my intervention, is that we are considering something that is a matter not of principle, but of practicality. That is a tremendously important and helpful clarification. However, let us bear in mind the fact that the Conservatives pulled out of the cross-party agreement not on a matter of principle, as we now find out, but on a matter of practicality. I find that surprising. In my judgment, a matter of practicality alone does not warrant a response of such enormity.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I must intervene, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention. He has made two important errors. First, the Opposition did not pull out of bipartisanship: the Government walked away from the basis of bipartisanship. That basis was the Belfast agreement and its implementation. When the Government went beyond that and, even before Belfast had been implemented, said that they would start throwing out new unilateral concessions, we said, "Wait a moment. You have left the territory on which we stood together. You have withdrawn from Belfast."
      Secondly, as I tried to make clear in my earlier remarks, the matter might be a practical one, but it has the profoundest consequences for the future of the entire process. It is not, therefore, a minor issue, and it would be extremely regrettable if it were considered in that light.
      Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and invite him to intervene again if he feels that I have misrepresented his remarks. He says that, in the view of the Conservatives, the Government walked away from the Belfast agreement. Let us be grown up about the matter. It was the hon. Gentleman himself who made an absolutely clear statement that the Conservatives were taking the proactive decision to walk away from the cross-party consensus.
      We had a substantial debate about the way in which that had been reported in the press at the time, but at that time I did not hear the hon. Gentleman questioning my interpretation that the Conservatives were indeed pulling out of the cross-party consensus. If I have misunderstood
      558
      that, I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. I should be delighted to hear that I have misunderstood, and perhaps that the Minister has also misunderstood the position, and that the Conservatives remain committed to a cross-party consensus.
      Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has indeed misunderstood. I shall therefore try again. Our position has not changed. We support the Belfast agreement; we have always supported the Belfast agreement. We believe that it should be implemented. We believe that it is quite wrong, before it has been implemented and before all sides have fulfilled their undertakings under it, to consider further moves—further concessions—going beyond it in favour of any parties to the Belfast agreement.
      When the Government decided to take that course, we said that we could no longer support them. The Government have an opportunity in the debate this afternoon to pull back from that position. I sincerely hope that they will do so and say in future that the Belfast agreement must be implemented, decommissioning must be completed, and only then can we consider any further concessions to any parties to the Belfast agreement which have yet to implement it.
      I cannot make our position clearer than that. It has been clear since the Weston Park agreement, which has never been debated in the House, that the Government were launched on a new course. The first measures that the Government introduced in accordance with their new strategy were those that we debated before Christmas. I made it plain then that we could not support them in that new and irresponsible departure.
      I continue to reiterate that position. I have said the same thing—in different ways, admittedly—three or four times in the debate this afternoon. When the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) reads Hansard tomorrow morning, he will know unambiguously where the Opposition stand.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has managed to provoke two very long interventions. Perhaps we might now narrow in on the specifics of the amendment before the Committee.
      Lembit Öpik: I certainly wish to focus on the amendments, Sir Alan, and I am grateful for your forbearance as we clarified that point. I believe that it is relevant to the debate, because understanding the Conservatives' motives in supporting the amendments will help me to provide a response to them. However, I shall not dwell on the matter. I shall do as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford says and study Hansard in great detail. I shall conclude from what he said that it was only a partial withdrawal from the cross-party consensus. I am encouraged by that. The hon. Gentleman also said that the amendments had been tabled on a matter of judgment, not on—
      Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Lembit Öpik: I will give way, as the point is so important, but then I must move on.
      Mr. Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to use words disingenuously, but when he talks

      559
      about the Conservative party withdrawing or pulling out, he is implying that the movement or change was made by us—far from it. We have stayed in the same place; it is the Government who have moved.
      Lembit Öpik: I shall not incur your wrath, Sir Alan, by pursuing that point, but I simply say that it sounds to me that one can be rather more optimistic that the hon. Gentleman, who is by nature a very pleasant and consensual man, is perhaps pulling back from what I incorrectly interpreted last year as withdrawal from the cross-party consensus. That is tremendously encouraging.
      Returning to the issue of principle versus practicality, it strikes me that, as I hope we can agree the hon. Gentleman said, at the core of the debate there is a matter of judgment: whether the proposal in the Act is more or less appropriate than that in the Bill. It all boils down to how long we should enable the amnesty to continue.
      I should from the outset say that the Liberal Democrats feel on balance that it is likely that the Government's proposal will make sense. It is probably helpful to the peace process to extend the amnesty in the way described. Let us remember that even the provisions of the unamended legislation must be debated and approved every year; otherwise the amnesty will fall. Therefore, we are talking about a rather detailed point: whether the opportunity to renew the amnesty should be allowed to continue on an annual basis until 2007 or for a shorter period. For that reason, we need to look at some pragmatic considerations.
      On several occasions when Conservatives have opposed relaxation of provisions and various steps forward, those steps have led to significant progress in the peace initiative. For example, there was great scepticism on the Conservative Benches and expressed by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), about the prospect of any decommissioning, yet it came about. Therefore, as one's judgment on Northern Ireland matters has evidently been flawed in the past, surely one needs to be cautious rather than vitriolic about the certainty with which one objects to the Government's proposals in the present.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he felt short deadlines tended to concentrate the mind, but if they are too short they can become meaningless. For example, the Prime Minister made a mistake in saying that there was no plan B in the Northern Ireland peace process. In fact, when no result was achieved, there turned out to be a plan B and the Government's credibility was slightly harmed by the decision. I suspect that as long as the peace process is moving forward there will always be a plan B, a plan C or a plan D.
      We are not dealing with idiots in northern Irish politics; we are dealing with some of the most sophisticated politicians anywhere in Europe. I am very aware of those sitting on the Benches behind me when I say that, and I hope that they are nodding. [Interruption.] I was of course referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), as well as to those on the Unionist Benches and Democratic Unionist party Members. Let us not pretend that a deadline that is very likely to be
      560
      extended by any Government who are making progress should be regarded as naive or superficial by those with whom we are dealing.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Would the hon. Gentleman care to mention how close it was to the deadline before the IRA took what has been described as a significant move towards decommissioning? I recall that it did so well beyond the deadline.
      Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There were four deadlines. Each of them was challenged and some fell, while some were exceeded. However, the fact of the matter is that the process continued not because of the deadlines or because those involved were frightened to break them. As he said, we went way past the original deadline. That happened because of internal matters relating to Northern Ireland and external matters relating to 11 September and the terrible own goal that the IRA scored in Colombia. Those matters were outside our control, but within our control was the provision of a sphere of opportunity in which initiatives could be taken if some external or internal matter might prompt them. Incidentally, I should say that Sinn Fein scored a remarkable triumph of public relations in turning that tremendous own goal in Colombia into a public relations success. That underlines the fact that we are dealing with very hard-nosed politicians who understand the game and will not be fooled by superficial deadlines that will be exceeded and have been in the past. There is a precedent of exceeding them not only under the existing Government, but under the previous one.
      Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the remarks that he made in a press release in August last year? He said:
      "There does need to be further clarification of the timetable for the decommissioning of IRA weapons."
      Is it the official Liberal Democrat position that the party is satisfied or not satisfied?
      Lembit Öpik: We are very satisfied that decommissioning has started. As I said, on judgment we conditionally feel satisfied that the Government are putting forward a reasonable agenda specifying a period during which we decide every year whether it is acceptable to proceed with the amnesty. I stress again that this is not a one-off debate between now and 2007. If I understand the Bill correctly, there will be another debate in 12 months, when we must return to the matter, assess what progress has been made and consider the reasonable concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his colleagues. We are arguing about the best process and various details in that respect.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman spoke about hard-nosed politicians and the perception in Northern Ireland. Does he recognise that the slithering that has been going on has caused greater disillusionment among ordinary people in Northern Ireland? Is it not time that they were considered, as well as hard-nosed terrorists?
      Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter previously on the Floor of the House. He is right, and I was going to deal later with

      561
      those very reasonable concerns. Unionist politicians in particular have expressed repeatedly in the Chamber and outside exactly the same concerns about disillusionment in the Unionist population. They have been described by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, and no doubt they are shared by all colleagues on the Unionist Benches. The issue needs to be addressed, but I suspect that the Bill in its current form will not help to reassure the Unionist population. Can the Minister of State provide some sort of reassurance that this very salient point will be taken on board? Although I have been criticising the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford in respect of other matters, I know that he has consistently and correctly raised the issue in the Chamber and outside. It is reasonable for the Committee to expect some reassurance from the Minister.
      In the context of a gradual step forward, let us remember what the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said on 22 November 1999, which is a long time ago. Speaking about the Mitchell review, he said:
      "The review has not produced a single text like the Good Friday agreement. Instead, it has concentrated on building trust and confidence by means of a number of important steps forward rather than waiting for one giant leap that might never be made."—[Official Report, 22 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 345.]
      So, even two years ago we had a Secretary of State who made it clear that a gradual approach was the most likely solution to matters in hand, and I feel that we need to give ourselves the chance to enable that gradual process to move forward.
      4.30 pm
      I hope that the tragic events of 11 September do not have to be replicated for further movement on decommissioning, but a series of international or national initiatives relating to Northern Ireland either directly or indirectly, in the context of terrorism, may be needed to prompt the process to move forward. The Bill as it stands simply means that we have five years to do that.
      Another point on which I take issue with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is whether we have already had a substantial time—whether five years is a substantial time for decommissioning. Let us remember that we are dealing with an issue that, depending on how we define it, has existed for decades, for almost a century, or for several centuries—one's historical perspective will determine which time scale one chooses. In that context, five years is not a long time. If we look at where we started and where we are now, we realise that those five years have generated more progress than the previous 30 years. That is a reasonable ground on which to give ourselves the space to allow the process to carry on.
      When one thinks about such things, it is always appropriate to ask, "What would I do if I were in the position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?" [Interruption.] I hear cheers of approval from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. Clearly he is thinking of defecting, as others have recently done—the door is always open.
      All of us, if we were in that position, would unquestionably start with the idea of outcomes. We would not focus on process, but would try to be clear what we were trying to do in the job—and surely that is to secure the peace and to stabilise and normalise the lives of the
      562
      ordinary people in Northern Ireland. If one concentrates on outcomes, the process is simply a tool, not an end in itself, and I believe that one would end up making pragmatic decisions along the way, not always with everyone's support.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford talked about "subterranean goings on" at Weston Park. I share his suspicions, and I think, although I am not sure, that there probably have been some informal agreements—perhaps even some talk about extending the amnesty. However, even if those discussions did take place, if, ultimately, they stabilise Northern Ireland and make it a more peaceful place, surely it is the Government's responsibility to take those risks and make those decisions.
      I remind Conservative Members that, to his great eternal credit, when John Major was Prime Minister he was negotiating with the IRA when it was not even on ceasefire. That was a much riskier and more dangerous thing to do in the political context, in terms of the potential for sending signals to terrorists that they could bomb and negotiate at the same time. We must not forget that that initiative, which I personally supported even at the time, was Conservative sponsored.
      I am sure that the Committee is now clear about what the amendments are intended to do, and we all understand that this is simply a debate about timing—or rather, not even about timing as such, but about how many times we can come back and discuss whether to extend the 12-month amnesty period again. I would like to think that it will all be over by 2003 or 2005, but I am not confident enough about that to be sure that we do not need the leeway to come back again until 2007.
      For those reasons, and although I respect others' right to differ—I also recognise the great pressures, to which I have already alluded, on Unionist and Democratic Unionist politicians in particular—I think that we have to bite the bullet and recognise that we have been here before, with two Governments of two different colours, and that every time we have made substantial breakthroughs, it has been because somebody on the Government Front Bench has taken a substantial risk.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The amendment fails to recognise that things move on in politics, and that new positions are reached. If this were an amendment about a hard and specific deadline, in the context of the past situation, I would often have been associated with such a position. However, because we have passed a previous deadline—which, although it changed, was eventually met—we are now in an entirely different situation. There has been an event of considerable significance in the putting beyond use of a number of arms by the IRA. Aspects of a deadline have, therefore, already been met—not, I think, because of the deadline but because of other factors. That helps to change the position. The Government have not moved away from the deadline position, but they have wavered a bit in connection with it. They now support something that could be called a rolling deadline. That allows for avenues of manoeuvre, depending on future developments.
      As the Conservative spokesperson said, the change that led to the putting beyond use of those arms did not come from the pressures of a deadline, but was the result of other political considerations by Sinn Fein and the

      563
      Provisional IRA. They were under tremendous pressure from America following the events in Colombia, and then the events of 11 September. They also clearly had in mind the political considerations concerning their standing in the Irish Republic, and whether they were going to be a political force at the coming general election. As the Conservative spokesperson also said, there could be further moves, because they have to try to accommodate themselves within that political situation. They are very hard nosed, politically, and are now willing to advance their own position entirely through the ballot box, if that avenue gives them the better chance, rather than by other means. These matters must be considered when we determine the deadline.
      Mr. John Baron: I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have indeed moved away from the concept of deadlines, because here we are today, debating a Bill that will allow the deadline to be extended for a further five years. That will lessen the potency of any future deadline, because there is always the risk that if we do not meet that deadline, there will be others to follow. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, completely wrong: the Government have significantly moved away from the concept of deadlines.
      Mr. Barnes: I am not completely wrong, because I recognise part of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I said that the Government have moved to what I described as a rolling deadline. Instead of there being a hard, specific deadline, which might in any case have to be changed by subsequent measures, a measure is to be introduced to allow different stages at which the provisions could, perhaps by statutory instrument, be extended in line with the contents of the Bill.
      That is a change, but it has been made because the situation has changed considerably and dramatically. At one time, those of us who were trying to press Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA into some response were desperate. There was nothing we could do except lay down a deadline and say to them, "You will see what will happen if you don't conform to that deadline." The Ulster Unionist party challenged them on a number of occasions in connection with that deadline.
      Many of us who proposed that deadline were willing to chance the situation; we were that desperate. We were saying that the situation might break down entirely, and that the whole agreement might go, but we believed that the people who would fail in those circumstances would be Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. They would be condemned for having operated in that way and for not having met the deadline.
      Sinn Fein-IRA have now taken a dramatic step in their history by putting a certain number of arms beyond use. The traditionalist argument of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein has been destroyed. Sinn Fein is involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Parliament in the Irish Republic, and it has taken up accommodation in this House. That is a dramatic change from its previous position. We must consider that situation. We should not jettison the notion of a deadline, but be a bit more accommodating, because other possibilities exist.
      We have learned that the greatest chance of achieving full decommissioning will come from various political pressures being brought to bear. Pressures from the
      564
      Government, the Irish Republic and the United States are dominant in achieving change. That is why we need the flexibility provided in the Bill, not the amendment, which takes us back to yesterday's position as if nothing had altered.
      Ulster Unionists Members have made important points. There is massive disillusionment in Unionist communities; something must be done in response to those concerns. We must show that action is being taken as forcefully as possible to bring about the decommissioning that people want. Other steps need to be taken to calm the fears in those communities.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I have tabled early-day motion 616, which refers to exiles. Paramilitaries on the run will not now be chased, but will be allowed to return. If that is on the agenda in the general framework, pressure should be brought to bear to get a response regarding the people who have been placed in exile by organisations such as the IRA and are not allowed in any circumstances to set foot in Northern Ireland for fear of their lives. That should end.
      It is not correct to say that Sinn Fein and the IRA are always being placated. We recently discussed legislation that seeks to tackle the problem of electoral fraud by Sinn Fein: it was directed against that organisation.
      Things change, and pressures can be brought to bear in different directions. I urge Ministers to deal with problems such as the return of exiles, and there are some signs that that is happening, which is welcome. We should not go back to the situation before this significant move took place, which was forced on the Provisional IRA. We should force on that organisation more changes and require it to make more concessions. It should get out of its paramilitary activities entirely and into purely political action. I do not support its present political objectives. We need to tackle the abuses that it is engaged in, such as having a record of where its money has come from when it stands in elections. The money has often come from the most obnoxious sources in America and elsewhere. At least the American Administration have finally come to terms with this issue, and are seeking change.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman graciously giving way on that point. The Government brought legislation before the House that let the IRA off the hook as regards declaring financial contributions from elsewhere. Is it not time that the Government and the House started to put pressure on the IRA, rather than leaving it to the Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland or to the American Government?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Barnes: That is a valid point. When we discussed entry into the House and the use of its facilities by Sinn Fein Members, the question of the Register of Members' Interests arose. Should Sinn Fein Members have to adhere to the requirement for MPs to record the source of any substantial contributions they have received for electoral purposes? Perhaps that requirement could be tightened, and used in connection with checking particulars relating to Sinn Fein.
      I am not opposed to the putting of many pressures on the Government to be tougher in many respects, but it should be borne in mind that that sometimes prompts favourable responses. We should accept the gains that are

      565
      made, and not complain all the time. The amendment returns us to a position that I occupied in the past, but have now departed from. My attitude has changed, because circumstances have changed. The Committee ought to recognise those changes, and I feel that such a recognition is reflected in the position of the Government rather than that of the Opposition.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) with great interest, as all Members always do, but I quarrel profoundly with the thesis on which he based his opposition to the amendments. He argued—I think I quote him correctly—that the decommissioning event of last autumn was a significant move forced on the IRA. In a limited sense, the timing was significant because of the significant 11 September dimension; but that, I think, is only part of the argument. We must understand the full argument to understand why the amendments should be supported.
      The hon. Gentleman overlooks one of the consistent strains of the entire so-called peace process: the Provisionals' explanation that they will decommission one day, that decommissioning forms part of the final solution, and that decommissioning will come when the causes of the conflict have been removed. Far from decommissioning being the sort of significant event that the hon. Gentleman might have us consider it, the token event of last autumn was in fact an acknowledgement that so many concessions had been made that, to a significant extent, the causes of the conflict had indeed been removed.
      That brings me to a point also made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Of course the situation changes; of course there is movement, if we continually make concessions to the men of violence. But the movement that arises from a democracy's giving ground to terrorist intransigence is not, I suggest, a movement of which hon. Members should be particularly proud.
      My speech will be short, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has fully explored the salient points of the argument. I merely want to emphasise one or two of his observations, and I do so with some happiness. I do not always agree with my hon. Friend about the Belfast agreement, but here we are discussing practicalities rather than the fundamental principle, and I think he has analysed those practicalities correctly.
      I believe that the Belfast agreement should have involved a firm decommissioning timetable all along, with consequences for non-observance. I also believe that it should have involved firm links between decommissioning and places on the Executive, and between decommissioning and prisoner release. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
      David Burnside: There was a clear agreement on the total completion of decommissioning by May 2000, strengthened by and linked to the Prime Minister's promise to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—on the day of the Good Friday agreement. That was the only reason why some of us supported the agreement, which would have excluded Sinn Fein from
      566
      government without decommissioning. It is the failure of Her Majesty's Government to live up to their commitment that has disillusioned the Unionist people.
      Mr. Hunter: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. On previous occasions, we have found common ground on that point. It is a fact that the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign and made pledges that plainly misled the people of Northern Ireland into believing that there was that linkage—the commitment that men of violence would not have a part to play in the future governance of the Province.
      The most telling point that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford made was that the potential extension of the amnesty for five years amounts to a surrendering of initiative to the Provisional IRA. The pressure should relentlessly be on the IRA to decommission. Extension of the amnesty period will mean that the pressure is potentially lifted. Instead of the pressure being on the IRA meaningfully to decommission, the Bill presents it with leverage to make further demands in return for more token decommissioning gestures.
      I am reminded of a general prediction. Many commentators anticipate that the next phase of token-gesture decommissioning by the Provisionals may come in the run-up to the Irish general election. I do not know whether that is the case. We will find out in time but the Bill unamended will enable decommissioning before the Irish general election, if it is to happen, to be token, just as it was token last autumn. Pressure is being lifted from the IRA, allowing it leverage to bargain for more concessions in advance of further decommissioning.
      Another point was made by several hon. Members during the Second Reading debate; my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford alluded to it. The Bill unamended gives out entirely the wrong signals. A strong argument for the inclusion of the amendments is that those false signals will be corrected. False signal number one goes to the terrorists. It confirms that they can buy more time through procrastination, deviousness and orchestrated delays. It is telling them that they need do nothing until February 2007. I recall the words of my hon. Friend on Second Reading, who said that it is as though we are saying,
      "Relax. Take your time. You are not up against a deadline".—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 53.]
      The concept of extending a deadline to speed up decommissioning is manifestly absurd.
      The second wrong signal goes out to the law-abiding majority of Northern Ireland. The Bill without these amendments is effectively saying that to all intents and purposes decommissioning is open ended. In particular, it is saying that decommissioning is being moved further and further down the agenda. Indeed, implicitly it is acknowledging that it may never happen.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said that he thought that the Government were being sucked into a modified position, retreating from such demands as there are in the Belfast agreement. I am not sure that I share that interpretation. Moving the decommissioning issue down the agenda has all along been the Government's intention. It appears to have been one of the assurances that the Prime Minister gave to the Provisionals soon after the 1997 general election, because

      567
      it was one of their demands for imposing a second qualified ceasefire. According to some republican sources, the assurance that decommissioning would be pushed further down the agenda was given to Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams shortly before last month's Second Reading debate.
      I argue, along with my hon. Friends, that it is wholly wrong for the Bill to be allowed to proceed with such a diluted, lax timetable and without a more demanding deadline. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, it is a fact of life that deadlines focus attention and clarify positions. The Government are surrendering a strong, almost moral high ground on decommissioning by not accepting the amendments. I strongly support the amendments.
      David Burnside: I wish to support the amendments. This issue goes far wider than pragmatism and extending the deadline for a while because the legal requirement is that the terrorists must be allowed to decommission. That was the basis of the Good Friday agreement—to move the terrorists to democracy and, one hopes, some time in the future, even to this place.
      I am totally disillusioned with this process and give the Government no credibility whatever because the word "deadline" should be banned from Northern Ireland political vocabulary.
      Jane Kennedy indicated assent.
      David Burnside: The Minister nods, but she nods for the wrong reason. The word should be banned because it is a joke in Northern Ireland political vocabulary. Politics should be about defeating the opposition. We must think about what is in the minds of Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly and the rest of the Army Council of the Provisional IRA. What do they want? What message do they want from this House today? I shall tell hon. Members what they want: they want the same message that they have received ever since the Good Friday agreement was signed—appeasement, appeasement, appeasement, and list after list of further concessions to republicans. That is what they have got and what they will get. Some concessions we know about and some we do not; some were made in Weston Park and some, perhaps, were not. What else is there?
      The deadline is an important matter of principle and pragmatism. The two are wrapped up together. The reason why people like me, who supported the agreement within the Ulster Unionist party, are so disillusioned with that agreement and its implementation is that the deadlines mean nothing. As I said in an earlier intervention, the May deadline meant nothing; the Provos could get away with it. The loyalist paramilitaries are all up at Stormont and the electoral system was bent in the Assembly to allow more people to get elected—there are so many at Stormont that I do not even know how many there are.
      Her Majesty's Government are bending the system, appeasing the terrorists—the men of violence, the gunmen and bombers who hold on to their arms and ammunition—and not putting deadlines on them. What sort of signal is coming from this House?
      I do not really want to support the Opposition's amendment of a one-year deadline, because the deadline should have been May 2000 and sanctions should have
      568
      been brought against those who were not adhering to the agreement. The Prime Minister promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the terrorists would be excluded from government until they had totally decommissioned and we had reached the end of the process. Instead, we have had a token symbol to keep the United States on side or to get over the home goal of FARC in Colombia.
      The Unionist people have been seriously let down. The Government had better think about symbols and the message that they are sending from this House. The Secretary of State should realise very soon that, because of the use of deadlines, the abuse of the English language and the fact that deadlines have not been adhered to, the Unionists—I was among the 50-plus per cent. who voted for the agreement—are disillusioned. It is one-side terrorism.
      5 pm
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Will my hon. Friend concede that while we have no reason to have any confidence in the deadlines set by the Government, who have been seen to roll over at every hurdle and make further concessions, we have good reason to have confidence in any deadlines set by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party?
      David Burnside: That is a double-edged question for me. My hon. Friend makes a good point and the disillusionment is felt because of the lack of commitment and adherence to the promises. We thought that with a new Prime Minister those commitments would be adhered to, but they were not, and that was why my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was forced into setting deadlines when that should have been the responsibility of the Government. It should be the Government against the terrorists in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. David Trimble: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I resort to my normal pettifogging and say that I am a little uncomfortable with the word "forced". I regrettably found it necessary to do something about setting deadlines and I may find it necessary again, but I am at pains to point out to my hon. Friend that I never felt forced to do it.
      David Burnside: Within the Province, under the Mitchell principles, we still have a fully armed—we do not know what the first, token act of decommissioning consisted of—Provisional IRA, and the other republican organisations, and the loyalist paramilitary organisations, both front and back ones, under different names, remain fully armed. The Bill and the amendments are trying to achieve an admirable outcome—to take the illegal guns out of Ulster politics—but in the process and by having no deadlines, we are ending up with the opposite result.
      All the concessions are being made, including those on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We talk about law and order, but why are we running down the numbers in the RUC and reducing the effectiveness of the special branch? We will see in March what will happen to the RUC reserve, but Ulster needs to retain the men and women of the reserve, because of the increase in crime and the continuing threat of terrorism. We will see if pragmatism

      569
      or principle holds sway, but I suspect that another concession will be made and the RUC reserve will be given away.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that even the discovery of the activities in Colombia stemmed from the work of the RUC special branch? It is time that those in the House and elsewhere recognised that the continued weakening of the special branch constitutes a danger to this nation and threatens the countering of international terrorism throughout the world.
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) will not pursue that matter further, because it is outside the scope of the amendment.
      David Burnside: The deadline is a principle that sends out a message, and the symbol of the message is important in achieving the objective of decommissioning. If the Government say five years rather than one year, they might as well say to the end of time, because a five-year deadline puts no pressure on Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. In the May elections, we can be sure that if pragmatic Fianna Fail and Bertie Ahern need the numbers to make up a coalition Government, they will do a deal with Sinn Fein, and forget about the Irish constitution and one army within a state. Bertie Ahern will do a deal because he wants power.
      My argument is about the symbolism involved in not accepting the tighter deadlines in the amendments. More concessions to the republicans in Northern Ireland are coming up. They were promised inquiries at Weston Park. They have the Bloody Sunday inquiry, and even the Bloody Sunday movies are being financed out of public funds by the British state. That is a bloody disgrace.
      The republicans will expect—and will receive—more concessions from the Government. I am very sceptical about the process and the agreement. The confidence of the Unionist people is being destroyed. It is no good having a process if it does not have the consent of both the majority and the minority in Northern Ireland. Unless the amendment is accepted, the symbolic message emanating from this House through this Bill will be that decommissioning does not matter and that people should forget about what has become just another a wee symbol. The general will be able to go back to Canada for a while, but perhaps he will return in the summer.
      We will not be told about it, but security will be run down. There will be a further weakening in police morale, and a reduction in the security that we need to cope with the increase in crime and with the sectarian violence practised by both the loyalist paramilitaries—disgracefully—and the republican paramilitaries, some of whom masquerade under front organisations. That is the way of politics and terrorism in Northern Ireland.
      The House must not send out the wrong message. The Government should take a stand. A five-year deadline means nothing, except that the deadline is a joke. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I rise to speak to amendment No. 2. It offers an alternative to amendment No. 1, and its purpose is to give the Government yet
      570
      another opportunity to send out a signal to those who bear arms that is much more robust than the signal contained in the Bill.
      Our problem is that amendment No. 1 is unlikely to be accepted by the Government, given the tone of their approach on Second Reading. It would be a wonderful surprise if the Minister, when she responds to the debate, were to say that she was going to accept amendment No. 1 and the message that that proposal would send out to those who illegally bear arms in Northern Ireland. However, it is just possible that the Government will not be convinced by our arguments on amendment No. 1, so we have tabled amendment No. 2 as an alternative strategy.
      Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and it deals with the signals being sent out by the Bill. It represents an attempt to deal with the problems already described by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others. The context for the debate is that the signals sent out to the Unionist community and Sinn Fein-IRA are contradictory. The treatment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is also part of that context, as are the proposals in the already published Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill referring to the symbology of the Crown and the state in the future of Northern Ireland, and to the oaths that judges will take.
      The Secretary of State has also spoken of there being a cold house for Unionists, so it is clear that one set of signals is being sent to the Unionist community, and quite another to Sinn Fein-IRA. Amendment No. 2 would offer the Government a mechanism for sending a more robust signal. The Government's signals about resistance to terrorism, as contained in the Bill, are distinctly uncertain, as are the signals from the Liberal Democrats. That is best summed up by the way in which Liberal Democrat Members voted on whether the House's facilities should be opened up to Sinn Fein Members. Fourteen Liberal Democrat Members voted for the measure, 14 voted against it, and 24 abstained.
      Lembit Öpik: I am glad to have the chance to point out that Liberal Democrat Members enjoyed a genuinely free vote on that occasion. In contrast, the Conservatives, by their own admission, imposed a three-line Whip. That is the difference between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.
      Mr. Blunt: I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. We had a free vote—it just happened that the Conservative party was united in its attitude towards people who are associated with a terrorist organisation having special treatment in the House and whether there should be one rule for one type of MP and one for another. However, a most uncertain sound, as usual, issued forth from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
      What a contrast there is between the signals sent to Sinn Fein by the Liberal Democrats and the Government and those sent by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Only this weekend, the Justice Minister of the Republic, Mr. John O'Donoghue, one of the most senior figures in Mr. Ahern's coalition Cabinet, reinforced the Taoiseach's remarks about Sinn Fein. He said that Sinn Fein had links with "an illegal army" and stressed:
      "It is entirely inconceivable that one would have a party in government that has access to serious matters dealing with security and defence while they were associated with a private army.

      571
      There can be only one army and police in any sovereign democracy."
      That is the attitude of Fianna Fail and the Irish Government toward Sinn Fein and any prospect of its being involved in a coalition.
      The Irish establishment, in the form of The Irish Times, commented in forceful terms in an editorial yesterday about the questions that Mr. Martin Ferris, a would-be Sinn Fein Dail deputy, posed about possible Sinn Fein participation in the next Irish Government. The Irish Times says that Mr. Ferris's questions
      "are largely rhetorical. The arrangements in the Executive would not be acceptable in the Republic. What Sinn Fein will have to understand is that they are not acceptable in the long term either in Northern Ireland. If IRA decommissioning is not completed and if the new police service is not accepted across the community, the Belfast Agreement will fall, in time. Sinn Fein will hold no ministries because Northern Ireland will have reverted to direct rule. Sinn Fein ministers will not sit on North-South ministerial councils because they will not exist.
      If it is Mr. Ferris's hope or anticipation that the Government of this State will operate to the compromises which have been applied in order to allow Sinn Féin to participate in the Executive, he is profoundly mistaken. There will be some ambiguity in certain Fianna Fáil quarters about this. Fianna Féil will be keenly seeking Sinn F éin transfers in certain constituencies. Meanwhile, the possibility of a Fianna Fáil-led Government supported externally by Sinn Féin—but without Sinn Féin participation—is not a mathematical impossibility and is quietly spoken of by some strategists."
      The Irish Times concludes
      "But Sinn Féin's ambivalence between democracy and violence would render even this an appalling and unacceptable vista. If Sinn Féin wants a share of power in this State, it has work to do. It has to choose finally, irrevocably and completely between the armed struggle—in any guise—and politics."
      That is the message being sent in the Irish Republic. One would hope that the Government were sending this clear message in the Bill, but the reverse is true. It is in the hope of sending a more robust signal than the one being sent by Her Majesty's Government in the Bill that amendment No. 2 offers the Government a different approach.
      The objective of amendment No. 2 is to enable the Government to distinguish between different classes of weapons in the amnesty legislation—the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—in respect of the timetable that applies to the items listed in its schedule. The amendment distinguishes between firearms and explosives. It proposes a three-year extension of the amnesty in respect of firearms but only a one-year extension in respect of explosives and the other provisions referred to in the 1997 Act. That proposal is being made in the light of the amount of weapons and explosives held in Northern Ireland by the IRA and the loyalist terror groups.
      5.15 pm
      According to the best guess of informed commentators, the IRA holds about 1,000 assault rifles, mainly AK47s. It still has most of the 150 tonnes of weapons obtained from Libya between 1985 and 1986. That included six tonnes of Semtex explosive, of which about half appears to have been used or to have been seized by the security forces—leaving about three tonnes in the hands of the Provisional IRA or the Real IRA.
      572
      It is also possible that the IRA has surface-to-air missiles, as well as important electronic equipment and detonation devices to set off large explosives, such as main bombs, and incendiary devices. The IRA has the equipment for portable factories to make incendiary devices and the time-power units that enable those weapons to be effective. The IRA still has the capacity for, and probably still possesses, 17 types of mortar for use against different targets.
      The inventory held by the IRA—Real and the Provisional—sits against the loyalist stock of weapons: 200 AK47s, 90 nine mm Browning pistols, 10 RPG7 rocket launchers and 150 warheads for them, and 450 grenades. Those details were put into the public domain by The Irish Times based on information about the hoard of weapons in loyalist hands in 1988. It is believed that loyalist terrorists subsequently came into the possession of Uzi submachine guns and more AK47s, handguns and grenades.
      Hugh Robertson: That is a pretty impressive arsenal by any standards. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those weapons can be directly traced to the IRA? Are there further weapons belonging to dissident republican groups?
      Mr. Blunt: I have been attempting to point out that that information was published in newspapers whose journalists have followed those events for a long time. However, they do not know precisely who holds what—any more than I, or indeed the Government, know. What we know is that all the various terrorist organisations—loyalist and republican—hold large amounts of substantial weaponry.
      The IRA is known to have obtained 150 tonnes of weapons from Colonel Gaddafi in the 1980s. Some of those weapons go far beyond the IRA's requirements for the low-level terrorism that it has been carrying out, so what sort of low-level artillery pieces—such as surface-to-air missiles or light artillery—are available to the IRA? We do not know.
      Hugh Robertson: There is considerable evidence that in the late 1990s the dissident republican groups were actively touting for arms throughout the Balkans, especially in Croatia. Does my hon. Friend agree that the position—dire as it seems—could be even worse?
      Mr. Blunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I acknowledge his expertise in that matter. Like several of my hon. Friends, he served in Northern Ireland and the House should listen carefully to his comments.
      It is important that we remove from circulation weapons such as M60 machine guns, 0.5 in calibre machine guns used to fire on helicopters, and surface-to-air missiles that do enormous damage and can take out aircraft and helicopters carrying large numbers of people. We must also take out of circulation, as soon as possible, the explosives held by the terrorist organisations. That is what the amendment would serve to do.
      The amendment would give the Government a vehicle whereby they could make a distinction between small arms and explosives.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way, especially

      573
      as he seemed to be about to mention a hypothetical air force, navy and possibly even submarine fleet. So to try to bring him back to earth a little, may I ask him whether he agrees about two facts—first, that Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of legally held weapons of any part of the United Kingdom and, secondly, that when lunatic terrorists tried to blow the heart out of my home borough, Ealing, in August 2001, they did not do so with RPG7s or kalashnikovs, but with fertiliser, sugar, diesel and a crude detonation device?
      Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but some of his remarks are unworthy. I was not about to suggest that the IRA has a navy or an air force. That is just absurd. We are trying to identify precisely what weapons the IRA has and what capability is available to it if it chooses to use it. Of course, the difficulty for the Government and all of us in approaching this issue is that the division between the Provisional IRA and the Real IRA, no doubt, alters, and people move, with their weapons and equipment, between the organisations, depending on the politics of the situation.
      As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, we must always remember that the Provisional IRA is a terrorist organisation that is on ceasefire. As soon as it ceases to be on ceasefire—a decision that it can take at any moment of its choosing—all those weapons will be available to it. If the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein, which are one and the same outfit, want to be taken seriously, they have to start taking all their weapons out of circulation as soon as conceivably possible. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to give the Government a vehicle so that they can say that holding serious weapons is completely unacceptable and that there will not be an amnesty for ever and a day involving certain weapons.
      I accept that amendment No. 2 can be improved. It represents an attempt to provide the Government with a set of ideas for a different way to approach this issue and to send out the signal, which we are anxious to do, that we must be robust with the people who illegally hold weapons. There may be difficulties with amendment No. 2, because it would extend the amnesty only in relation to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and a one-year deadline would be applied to the offences listed in the schedule to the 1997 Act.
      One of the offences listed in the schedule is that included in section 10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. I have a list of 322 possible offenders under that section, which is headed, "Contributions to resources of proscribed organisations" and states:
      "A person is guilty of an offence if he…gives, lends or otherwise makes available…whether for consideration or not, any money or other property for the benefit of such an organisation".
      Of course, the IRA is a proscribed organisation, and there is a pretty clear relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein. I wonder what 322 Members were doing on 18 December, when they voted to give resources to Sinn Fein.
      Section 10(2) of the 1989 Act states:
      "In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(b) above it is a defence to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the money or property was for the benefit of a proscribed organisation".
      We had an interesting debate on Second Reading about the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA. At the conclusion of that debate, one can have been in no doubt
      574
      at all that even the Government accepted that there was an inextricable link between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Hon. Members appear not to have made any declarations of interest today in proposing the amnesty in relation to this provision, given their record on 18 December. They will have to live with that, but I wonder whether they should have declared such an interest.
      To summarise, the purpose of amendment No. 2 is to provide the Government with another method to send the message that democrats' toleration of terrorists is limited and that the existence of armed groups cannot be permanently tolerated. The more substantial the weaponry, the less should be our toleration and patience.
      The amendment can no doubt be improved upon, and that is why it was tabled as a probing amendment. However, its approach would give the Government another chance to say to terrorist organisations that, as far as decommissioning is concerned, it must not be business as usual for ever and a day.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I regret that I have to begin by dealing with some of the attempted revisionism of recent events by pro-agreement Unionists. I noticed particularly in interventions on the speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) the suggestion that all the ills that now face our society and the necessity for a Bill such as the one before us have come about because, in some way, the Prime Minister deceived the people of Northern Ireland and because the IRA have not delivered on the deals into which it entered. However, politicians cannot use those reasons to explain sufficiently to the people of Northern Ireland the bad judgment that they exercised previously when they considered this issue.
      We face the dilemma that we do with the Bill because the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) entered into a poor agreement with bad people. He should have known, as all the rest of us in Northern Ireland who opposed the agreement knew, that we could not trust the Provisional IRA. He should have known, as the rest of us in Northern Ireland who opposed the Belfast agreement knew, that we should not take the word of the Prime Minister on issues that could not clearly be substantiated in the text of the Belfast agreement. Let us therefore be clear that we face this dilemma because an agreement was reached that was never going to be delivered by the Provisional IRA and that it does not intend to deliver even now.
      Let us stand back slightly from the technicalities that some on the Government Benches would have us address, and consider the wider issue involved. We could merely consider the legislation—and who could be against a Bill coming to the House to enable decommissioning to take place? The Government could rightly ask the House whether it wanted decommissioning in Northern Ireland to take place, and everyone would say, "Yes, of course we do." The Government would then be entitled to say, "If you want it, we must have provision in legislation to allow it to happen." The Government therefore introduced this Bill. However, when one stands back, one recognises that it is only part of the jigsaw and that decommissioning is an essential part of an overall process. Only then does one begin to address the key issue.

      575
      The facts are these. Irrespective of whether the Government accept the Conservative amendment or whether the Committee supports it, the reality is that the Provisional IRA will not decommission its weapons.
      Mr. Trimble: You were wrong before.
      Mr. Robinson: I have been right all along on this issue, and the right hon. Gentleman, who says that we were wrong before, is still incapable of telling the House what the IRA have decommissioned, where its programme for decommissioning is and when it will next decommission anything. He cannot do that because neither he nor anyone else knows if and when that will happen. If justice is to be done and is seen to be done, decommissioning needs to happen and needs to be seen to have happened. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take the word of the Provisional IRA, I am not; nor, indeed, are the people of Northern Ireland whom I represent.
      What is required is not simply a timetable but a sanction. However, there is no sanction in the Bill or in the amendment. The only sanction that is meaningful is the exclusion from government of the Provisional IRA's representatives. That sanction is in the hands not of the Committee nor of the Government, but in those of members of the Ulster Unionist party in the Government in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They have the sanction, but were prepared to act on it only temporarily when they had to face the people in an election.
      5.30 pm
      The Government are, of course, entitled to put whatever length of time they like in their legislation, but the Opposition are right: the deadline is a farce. The very fact that it is being extended shows that it is not a deadline. We have the strange concept, delivered with a straight face by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), of a rolling deadline. Has he really not considered his words? How on earth can we have a rolling deadline? It is a contradiction in terms. If it is rolling, it is not a deadline, but a rolling deadline is precisely what the Government have, and year by year it will go on. They will introduce another piece of legislation in five years' time and, with clean hands, say, "Well, we need to give the Provisional IRA the opportunity to decommission should it wish to do so."
      The matter is not technical. It is important, and not simply for practical purposes, because it is a matter of principle. We are discussing whether it is proper for people who are to be part of the democratic process to have at their beck and call an army with a stockpile of weapons that they can use. That is the issue that we are to address. I guarantee that if I were to ask every individual in the Committee whether it is proper that the IRA should have such weaponry, they would say, "No. There should be decommissioning", and if there should be decommissioning, the obvious question is whether there should be consequences if it is not forthcoming.
      Jane Kennedy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not simply a question for the IRA? It is also a question
      576
      for all who are engaged in violence and the threat of violence. It is for all those organisations to consider their position and for all those engaged in the peace process to use their influence to bring about disarmament and decommissioning.
      Mr. Robinson: Of course the issue of handing over illegal weaponry is relevant to any organisation that holds them. It is especially important in relation to the Provisional IRA because it, and it alone, can exercise authority in government. A member of the IRA's army council exercises authority as a Minister of Education in the Government of Northern Ireland. That does not happen in relation to the loyalist paramilitary organisations. However, the principle of handing over illegal weaponry applies to all organisations that hold them. They should do that and there should be consequences if they do not, whether republican or loyalist organisations.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made one of his best speeches. I do not agree with his support for the Belfast agreement, but his reference to the Provisional IRA's likely attitude to deadlines is spot on. He understands that much better than the Government do. Were we to put legislation through the House and tell the IRA, "You've got five years to decommission", it would not do that next week or next year. It would wait until the deadline when it could extract concessions from the Government before making another contribution that was as meaningless and token, and as much of a stunt and a sham, as its previous gesture; and the Government would herald it as a great advance of the peace process. The Provisional IRA will do that, with the Government making a further open concession the day after, just as they have done before.
      I have no stomach for the play acting on the number of days, weeks or years of any deadline, because the Provisional IRA will use and abuse any deadline it is offered. The Committee needs to exercise its mind on what sanction it has against those who do not decommission. The Secretary of State has the power under existing legislation to advance to the Northern Ireland Assembly a requirement for the Speaker of that Assembly to put a motion before it for the exclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA, on the basis that decommissioning has not taken place in accordance with the legislation. He should do that immediately. Only that kind of sanction is likely to work and bring about decommissioning by the Provisional IRA.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: Just about everything that needs to be said about this group of amendments has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others of my hon. Friends, so I shall not detain the Committee unnecessarily long.
      All of us have been faced, although we may not have known it, with a deadline of 31 January. That deadline is for our tax returns. I have been doing mine this week, and I hope that all hon. Members have submitted their tax returns, or that their accountants are preparing to do so; otherwise there is a sanction. The sanction is a £100 fine. It is automatic and we all know about it. Of course, £100 is not as much money as it used to be, but it is still a reasonable sum. For that reason, I was determined to send in my tax return on time.

      577
      That is the point about deadlines: they put on pressure. If one does not accept the deadline, there is a sanction. It is straightforward. If one does not submit a tax return by the end of February, I understand that 5 per cent. interest is charged on the sum owing. All hon. Members should note that, and more importantly, should note the lesson. It is vital that the point of a deadline be understood. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is off to do his tax return.
      Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is indeed rushing off to do his tax return, late.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford observed, the Bill completely changes the Belfast agreement. The Minister will be familiar with the paragraph in the agreement that allows two years for decommissioning, which ran out in May 2000, as I recall. The Bill reneges on the Belfast agreement. The Minister shakes her head. Perhaps she wishes to intervene to explain why that is not the case.
      The Belfast agreement allowed two years, yet the Bill extends that period, possibly by another five years. What is that if not changing—reneging on—the Belfast agreement? Those of us who, with a certain amount of unhappiness, supported the Belfast agreement as the best way forward for peace are greatly saddened that the history of the agreement, particularly since May 2000 but before then as well, has been one of appeasement and concession after concession to one side.
      The Minister should show a little embarrassment or even shame. It is a great tragedy. As we heard, people who did not want to support the Belfast agreement were encouraged to vote for it in Belfast. I know many Northern Ireland people who voted for it and who are now embarrassed that they encouraged others to do so. They are disenchanted and feel lost. Only this week, I received a letter from a great friend there who says that the position is appalling. The crime that is taking place in Northern Ireland is that we are conceding and appeasing. I tell the Minister, in sorrow rather than in anger, that the Bill is an embarrassment. The Government should be ashamed, as should the media, which do not report the matter sufficiently well.
      Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are consistently undermining the Belfast agreement by conceding time after time? In May 2000 the IRA said that it was ready to decommission its arms. Now that it has had concession after concession over the ensuing period, surely it is for the IRA to explain why it is not happy to do what it originally undertook to do. It is not for the Government to respond in advance and always on the back foot.
      Mr. Robathan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government repeatedly give way, having received nothing in return, except a few arms which are described as significant and which were handed in or destroyed in some manner. We can discuss till the cows come home how important X number of Armalites is, but the truth is that there has been concession after concession. That is appeasement, in anyone's book.
      578
      Loyalist terrorists are also covered by the extension of the deadline. Loyalist terrorism is a serious problem. It is exactly as bad to be shot, knee-capped or beaten up by a loyalist terrorist as by a republican terrorist. The truth is, however, that they are less significant, and the Government know that.
      First, loyalist terrorists do not form part of the Administration in Northern Ireland. Secondly, from when I was involved in such matters I know that they are pretty much infiltrated by intelligence and security forces in a way that, very understandably, the republicans are not. Thirdly, loyalist terrorism is essentially reactive. Loyalist terrorists exist because the IRA exists. They are just a bunch of unpleasant thugs who are probably more interested in criminality than politics. They are not significant players, and to keep harping on about loyalist terrorism is a diversion.
      Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that loyalist paramilitaries direct a huge amount of activity at the nationalist community, and that for that reason it is very much in our interests to give them the space to decommission as well—if only we can get them to do so?
      Mr. Robathan: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who made a speech with one foot on each side of the fence, as usual sitting neatly on it before jumping off and leaping to the Government's defence and then into bed with them. Loyalist terrorists, like everybody else, should have decommissioned their weapons already. That was the point of the Belfast agreement. The hon. Gentleman might care to read it. Indeed, half of them are not now even on ceasefire; the Government have said that it is not recognised. I want an equal crackdown on the thugs who are so-called loyalist terrorists and the thugs who are republican terrorists.
      I turn to the subject of dissident republicans, who are also covered by the extension of the deadline, which raises a certain disingenuity. The IRA terrorist movement is fairly fluid. It would be interesting to know what information and intelligence the Government have about how many people in the so-called Real IRA or Continuity IRA drift in and out of Provisional IRA discussions. That is not as clear cut as anybody would try to pretend. It certainly seems to me that the groups are moving among each other.
      I am certain that members of the IRA, including Martin McGuinness and others, will know the players in the Real/Continuity IRA and what they are doing. It would be extraordinary if they did not, having grown up and worked with them for 20 years. I am sure that Government intelligence would confirm that—even though we continue the fiction that dissident republicans are entirely separate and form organisations totally different from the Provisional IRA. Such groups may disagree with the Provisional IRA, but they are pretty close to them in many other ways.
      The lack of a deadline has also led to a rise in support for more extreme parties. I do not want to upset the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but he illustrates the fact that his view is much more "no surrender" than that we must reach some pragmatic agreement, which we must if we are to achieve peace—and God willing we will. Much more important than the rise of the Democratic Unionist party vote at the election

      579
      at the expense of some of the official Ulster Unionists was the rise in the Sinn Fein vote at the expense of the sensible, moderate, nationalist Catholic—whatever one likes to call it—vote.
      People turned from the Social Democratic and Labour party to Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked to the IRA. Part of that is the Government's responsibility because Sinn Fein have shown that it can deliver, stand up to the British Government and get what it wants. It can stick with the fiction of being removed from violence but get what it wants, carrying an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other.
      I would have thought that everybody in the Committee, including the Minister, would be greatly distressed at the fact that an enormous number of perfectly decent people in Northern Ireland are now prepared to put a cross against Sinn Fein on the ballot paper. I am sure that most of them are perfectly decent and could explain why they did so were they here, but it is largely because the Government have given Sinn Fein such credibility.
      I should like to ask one more thing about the extension of the amnesty, and perhaps the Minister might address it too. What further plans do the Government have to extend the amnesty to Irish terrorists who have committed crimes on the mainland but may not yet have been charged, identified, accused or convicted? Will the amnesty be extended to become all embracing in relation to all such people, including those who were responsible for the Canary Wharf and Bishopsgate bombs? I care about that and I think that most people in London care. Perhaps when the matter comes a bit closer to home, people in London and England as a whole might care a little more about what happens in Northern Ireland.
      5.45 pm
      I have spoken for quite long enough, but I should like to say that a deadline must be a deadline. One of my colleagues suggested that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was talking about a roll-over deadline. That is what it has been. Nothing has happened and it has meant nothing.
      Mr. Barnes: Two comments have been made about the term "rolling deadline", which was obviously produced as a paradox and was part of the general analysis in which I was engaged. With regard to people who have only simple-minded, yah-boo views on the matter, what I was saying goes well beyond such views, as it does in respect of the two hon. Members who have referred to the issue.
      Mr. Robathan: If one has a deadline, one has a deadline. One can roll it around as much as one likes. The hon. Gentleman is not a fool, but neither am I, and I reckoned that a deadline of two years up to May 2000 was exactly that: a deadline. We have now reached January 2002 and we are looking at five more years.
      The lesson that the Government have not learned is that the end does not justify the means. We want to see peace in Northern Ireland, but extending the amnesty deadline will not ensure it and will only be further appeasement for the thugs and terrorists who do not want to see peace in Northern Ireland unless they are in charge of the place.
      Mr. Baron: As one of those who has served in Northern Ireland—I did so as a platoon commander—and having seen at first hand the atrocities caused by terrorists, I firmly believe that the Bill in its unamended form is a big mistake. Nobody is keener than me for the peace process to succeed, but the Bill, which allows paramilitaries up to a further five years to meet their decommissioning obligations under the Belfast agreement, is completely wrong as it sends out the wrong signals to the various terrorist and paramilitary organisations.
      Decommissioning is the one element of the Belfast agreement that is lagging behind very badly. To suggest through the Bill that terrorist organisations can take their time—indeed, it says that they can have another five years—will not help the agreement's chances of succeeding. I hold that view for two reasons. First, the Bill will reinforce the feeling among Unionists that this is a one-way process—a point to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) alluded—and will generate problems for the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party and the Assembly in general. Secondly, the Bill also does not help the Belfast agreement because it delays one of the key ingredients that is essential to its success—decommissioning. Rather than speeding up decommissioning, the Bill has the opposite effect and will slow it down.
      The Secretary of State and the Minister will know that there is a habit in Northern Ireland of taking everything to the wire. In other words, as anyone who has been to Northern Ireland knows, giving terrorists another five years means that they will take another five years without thinking about it. Sinn Fein-IRA are dragging their feet because that increases pressure on the British Government. The Government are allowing that to happen, which is plain for the world to see—except, of course, the Government themselves.
      Meanwhile, the people of the Province continue to suffer. Violent riots continue while the paramilitary beatings, maimings and murders carry on. We are even building new walls in Belfast, while there has been no further progress on decommissioning. All that puts a tremendous strain on the Army, which is caught in no man's land, where a peace process is allegedly making progress while the violence continues unabated. It is not as though the other parties to the agreement have not kept their side of the bargain. The UUP was prepared to share government with Sinn Fein-IRA; the Irish Government have changed their constitution; and the British Government have legislated for devolved government. Meanwhile, the terrorist prisoners were released within a two-year time frame, which was not part of the agreement, in the hope that decommissioning would also follow within two years.
      The Conservatives tried to link prisoner releases with decommissioning, through amendments to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill in 1998, but we were defeated by the Government.
      Sinn Fein-IRA are now holding up the Belfast agreement by refusing to decommission totally, and all that the Government can do by way of response is to give them another five years. That is a shameful policy, and betrays both the good intentions of those who have served in Northern Ireland and, above all, the people themselves.

      581
      As a country, we send troops to Macedonia to disarm warring factions, yet we cannot disarm terrorists in our own country. We have, rightly, played a leading role in putting together a globally co-ordinated fight against terrorism following the atrocities of 11 September, yet we bend the knee to terrorists in our own back yard.
      The time has now come for Sinn Fein-IRA to deliver on their promises about decommissioning, and for the Government to ensure that they do so. That is why I support the amendments.
      Jane Kennedy: I would like to take the opportunity to offer my personal good wishes for the new year to you, Mrs. Heal, and to all hon. Members. Sadly, for hon. Members who are engaged in this debate, with their particular interest in Northern Ireland, the new year has not started as we would have wished, because I should report to the Committee that there has been further trouble, which I understand is still continuing, at the Holy Cross school in Ardoyne. Obviously, we in the Chamber do not have the full details, but I understand that so far two police officers have been injured.
      May I test your patience, Mrs. Heal, and invite hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen to join me in appealing for calm, and saying that, as we have witnessed in the past, confrontation and violence do not help to resolve such problems? Dialogue is the only way of resolving the grievances felt on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
      I pay tribute to the work that the officials of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have put into resolving some of the grievances, and to my own officials, too. Let us not allow the children to be made victims again, and have to endure unnecessary trauma because of the failure of adults to live peacefully together. Those comments are entirely outwith the context of the debate, but they serve to remind us of the seriousness of the issues that we are dealing with.
      This has been a good and interesting debate, which has centred on the principle of deadlines. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) rightly reminded us of the importance of the language that we use and how we use it, and at the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) quoted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take us back to that debate, and quote from a different column of Hansard.
      My right hon. Friend set out our view of the deadlines and what they mean. He acknowledged that, as many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate would accept,
      "Several factors led to the act of decommissioning",
      and then added:
      "but I do not believe that the pressure of a 26 February deadline"—
      the deadline that we are discussing today—
      "was one of them."
      My right hon. Friend said that pressure had come from several sources and he listed several of them, some of which have been referred to today. He continued:
      "In my view, the most important factor, and the most important sanction on those engaged in the process"—
      that is, the peace process—
      "is the possibility of its failure."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 40.]
      582
      I would like to use that as my starting point in replying to this thoughtful and probing debate. I know that the amendments are not probing amendments in our usual sense of that term, but are a genuine representation of the views and feelings of the Opposition parties, and I hope to be able to deal with some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.
      The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not listening at the moment, but he and I have shared many debates and debated many issues for what, for me, is becoming far too many years in this House. I am disappointed to hear that he believes that we seek to be diversionist. In my view, he downplayed the importance of loyalist terrorism, and I was sorry to hear him suggest that I was being disingenuous in supporting the Government in introducing the Bill. That is not my intention, nor the Government's intention.
      Mr. Robathan: I did not downplay the importance of loyalist terrorism, but its significance. It is just as important if someone has their leg blown off by a loyalist bomb as by a republican bomb, but the fact is that loyalist terrorism is not of the same significance and importance in the political debate. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of that.
      Jane Kennedy: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I have often disagreed in the past, and I am sure that we shall not agree tonight.
      Of course the Government accept the necessity of keeping the pressure on all paramilitaries to disarm, but we believe that that is best done through the political process. In order to be permanent, decommissioning must be voluntary, and our strong view is that imposing deadlines implies that it will be forced. Hon. Gentlemen have talked about sanctions, but I do not believe that a forced initiative will secure lasting peace, which is, I know, what we all seek to achieve.
      Mr. Trimble: I find it a bit difficult to reconcile what the hon. Lady has just said with the Secretary of State's comments that she quoted earlier, in which he referred—and she endorsed the reference—to a series of pressures that had produced decommissioning. The decommissioning was not voluntary; it was a result of a series of pressures, and the Minister will know that underlying this debate is the concern about whether it will continue, as originally envisaged. It would do a lot of good if she would say exactly what the Government propose to do now, and in the forthcoming weeks and months, about that issue.
      For example, the Government have a programme of normalisation measures. Will they continue that programme even if it is not matched by a programme of decommissioning? Will the normalisation programme proceed, so that pressure is not put on the terrorists? Will the Government not take the lesson that, as the Secretary of State himself said, a series of pressures is needed? One of those is, of course, the deadline, but others are actions that the Government can take—or will the Government do as they have done before, sit back and do nothing, and let other people do the work?
      Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman has made a fair point—at least in the first part of what he said.

      583
      Obviously, I do not accept his suggestion that we sit back and do nothing, and let other people put the pressure on. Working with him and with others, including the international community, we seek to maintain that pressure. Perhaps he made a fair point about my earlier comments, but the pressure that led to the act of decommissioning was precisely the combined pressure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and others. It was a combination of, for example, international pressure to decommission, plus the right hon. Gentleman's own action in resigning. Working with all the others engaged in the process, we must maintain that pressure to take the process further.
      Mr. Trimble: May I take the hon. Lady back to the specific point that I mentioned? The Government have a programme of normalisation measures; some of them have already been taken and some have not. Will she turn her mind to any future normalisation measures that are in the Government's mind? Could not the Government consider linking those with a decommissioning programme? That in itself would be an immediate pressure, although not a big pressure. The Minister might not find it politic to be too explicit about doing that, but may I urge the Government seriously to consider linking that programme to a decommissioning programme? That is immediate pressure that could be brought to bear.
      6 pm
      Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He probably will not like my reply, but this is not about deadlines, or about concessions. It is not even about bargaining our way through this process. It is about changing hearts and minds, and we can do that only by continuing with our objective of implementing the Belfast agreement.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford led on the issue of deadlines in moving the amendment, but at no point—apart from oblique references by other hon. Members to sanctions—have we been told what he would do if, regrettably, there were no progress over the next year, and the deadline that his amendment suggests were in place. We have not had a coherent argument from the hon. Gentleman about what he would do in those circumstances. That is a genuine question that he needs to consider when dealing with these issues, and when probing the Government on the question.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: It is my approach to opposition politics that one should always be prepared to answer such a question, and I believe that I have set a good example in doing so. I have stated clearly what I would do, and I shall return to that matter if I have the opportunity to do so on Third Reading. I have said that we should attempt to negotiate a programmed process, and that we should give no further concessions whatever to republicanism, except when the Belfast agreement has been fulfilled or in exchange for incremental specific acts of decommissioning. I would not have given away the prisoners. I endorse entirely the view of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the
      584
      normalisation and further measures now under consideration should be closely linked to progress on the vital question of decommissioning.
      Jane Kennedy: That was useful, and I will look again at the hon. Gentleman's comments when they are published in Hansard and read them carefully. I shall look forward to debating them with him in the House. This debate will run on throughout this evening, and a number of points will be raised in relation to the amendments and the new clause, and again on Third Reading. I do not wish to go over the same ground too often.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that extending the deadline—that is the phrase that we are using today—for one year only would put more pressure on the paramilitaries, but I do not believe that that would be the case. He must remember that the Bill extends the legal amnesty for only one year, after which, if we need more time, we must come back to the House for the issue to be debated and voted on again. That is the actuality of the case. I know that hon. Members are not being disingenuous in tabling the amendment, but to suggest that we are putting in place a five-year deadline is profoundly wrong.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the last Conservative Government introduced the existing decommissioning legislation in 1997 in hope rather than expectation, and that the context is now different. I wholeheartedly agree. The situation has changed. We have achieved a blueprint for permanent change in Northern Ireland—the Belfast agreement—and I acknowledge his continuing support for that. We have begun to implement every aspect of that agreement and, crucially, we have achieved a real and tangible start to decommissioning. We are, therefore, introducing this Bill in expectation rather than in hope—the opposite of what happened before—because we expect the Bill to play an essential part in the decommissioning process and feel that we have more reason than ever to provide a proper legal framework in which decommissioning can take place.
      Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Lady will deal with the essential issue before she sits down. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that deadlines are taken full advantage of in Northern Ireland by all participants. In other words, if we extend a deadline, all other things being equal we extend the time available for the completion of the obligations that the deadline governs. The Secretary of State has already said that. Perhaps it was an involuntary slip, but it was an extremely significant one. Of course, there are many other factors involved, but our responsibility is to get the deadline right. The idea that having a longer deadline will produce a shorter period of implementation beggars belief. The Secretary of State does not believe that, and I do not believe that the Minister does either. How can she therefore defend resisting our amendment proposing a shorter deadline?
      I hope that the Minister will not return to the idea that the Bill extends the regime for one year. She knows that that is entirely artificial and that the signal in the Bill comes from the headline date. The signal being sent is that the Government are extending the regime for five years. The wording is exactly the same as in the 1997 Act, which introduced the five-year regime that we are

      585
      now rolling forward, so there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Government are trying to extend the regime for five years. That is their fatal mistake.
      Jane Kennedy: I am falling into the same bad habit as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) in provoking interventions from hon. Members. I must try to refrain from doing that.
      Mr. Davies rose—
      Jane Kennedy: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in my own time and in my own way, and I have a number of other points to make that might answer some of his questions.
      The expiry date of this legislation to provide the legal framework for decommissioning has never been a factor in any discussions with Sinn Fein or any of the other parties. We have started to call it a deadline in this debate, but the question has never arisen before or been the subject of any discussions with Sinn Fein. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      On the speech made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I must be careful not to fall into the habit of constantly saying what a good, thoughtful, challenging and thought-provoking contribution he made, but that is what he did. My years of practising the dark arts as a Whip have led me to be more careful in responding to the provocation that Ministers get from time to time from hon. Members seeking to goad them into making what they hope will be unwise responses. I shall not, therefore, go down some of the avenues that the hon. Gentleman pursued, but he made an important point about the concerns of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) also made a strong statement on that issue. I accept that we must reach out and listen to those concerns. The way in which they are articulated is also important.
      We must bear it in mind that the process so far has been successful only because of the engagement of the Unionists. They have been instrumental in the establishment of the institutions and in putting pressure on all parties to participate in democracy. The peace process cannot succeed without their continued engagement. There is much for Unionism to draw comfort from in the progress that has been made in recent times. I could list some of the details, but I did so on Second Reading and I invite hon. Members to look at those comments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire talked about exiles. That is a matter for another day and a different debate, and I shall not refer to it today. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, which was well informed and provocative—again! I listened carefully to his comments and I shall think about them.
      Mr. Baron: If the Government are to hold out a hand to the Unionists on this issue, surely the best way is to ensure that deadlines are exactly that—deadlines. They should not be a rolling series of lines in the sand that continually get eroded. Every time the Government draw a fresh line, the potency of that line diminishes because it has no real effect. The best way of bringing all parties to the table on decommissioning is to ensure that a deadline means exactly that—a deadline.
      Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that had we done what Conservative
      586
      Members are urging us to do and held to those deadlines, we would not have had the act of decommissioning that we have witnessed. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but we have had a credible start to decommissioning from the IRA. Whatever hon. Members may think of that act—they may have their own views on it—the decommissioning process has begun.
      Mr. Robathan rose—
      Mr. Swire rose—
      Jane Kennedy: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
      The decommissioning process has begun, thus removing the final obstacle to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. However, we must recognise that implementation is a long-term process, and full implementation may not be completed for some years. The Bill extends the immunity provisions for one year only. It provides for the possibility—nothing more—of further extensions beyond that, subject to the approval of the House. We consider that that is appropriate. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine this issue again after one year.
      We consider that an extension of the order-making power of five years is appropriate. As was the case when the 1997 Act was brought into force by the Conservative Government, the five-year period does not represent a time frame for decommissioning; it is simply the usual period for time-limited Acts. It allows each Parliament the opportunity to consider the basic principles of the legislation, as this Parliament is doing now.
      David Burnside: Will the hon. Lady, as an experienced Minister in Northern Ireland, inform the Committee whether she believes that the Provisional IRA, the republican groups and the loyalist paramilitaries would support the Bill or the Bill as amended?
      Jane Kennedy: If I can spare the hon. Gentleman's blushes, may I say that I thought he made perhaps the best speech of this debate? He articulated passionately and coherently the concerns of his community. I acknowledge the profound disappointment of members of his party and other parties, including the Conservative party, who feel that progress has been painfully slow, and that these acts of decommissioning have had to be dragged out of the apparently unwilling organisations that hold the weapons.
      The hon. Gentleman talked about the message that should go from the House. The message to those organisations is clear: decommissioning is a process and a start has been made. The most important thing about the Bill is that it shows that the Government are serious in their pursuit of decommissioning of all illegally held weapons, and that they intend the legal framework for that to happen to remain in place.
      Amendment No. 2 deals with the offences in the schedule to the 1997 Act. We see no merit in enacting legislation that in our view would be calculated to make those in illegal possession of weapons less likely to decommission. That would surely be the effect of the amendment.
      Various aspects of the schedule mostly relate to possession of weapons or explosives, but others concern offences that may stem from a person's participation in

      587
      decommissioning—not necessarily centred on the weapons involved, but on the behaviour that may accompany participation, such as the withholding of information or making arrangements with terrorists. The amendment would leave someone in possession of explosives open to prosecution, and I cannot see how that would encourage decommissioning.
      We shall return to some of these issues as we go on to debate the new clause and Third Reading. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 374.

      Division No.241

      [6.15 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gray, James

      Amess, David

      Grayling, Chris

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Greenway, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bacon, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baron, John

      Hayes, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Heald, Oliver

      Bellingham, Henry

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hoban, Mark

      Blunt, Crispin

      Horam John

      Boswell, Tim

      Howarth Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Brady, Graham

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bums, Simon

      Key, Robert

      Bumside, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burt, Alistair

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cameron, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cash, William

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Lansley, Andrew

      (Chipping Bamet)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Chope, Christopher

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clappison, James

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lidington, David

      Collins, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Loughton, Tim

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Maples John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Evans, Nigel

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fallon, Michael

      Osbome, George (Tatton)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Page, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Pickles, Eric

      Francois, Mark

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Prisk, Mark

      Gibb, Nick

      Randall, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      588

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tredinnick, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trend, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Selous, Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Simmonds, Mark

      Viggers, Peter

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Whittingdale, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Wiggin, Bill

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Spink, Bob

      Willetts, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Yeo, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Streeter, Gary

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swire, Hugo

      Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Charles Hendry.

      Syms, Robert

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      (NE Fife)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Allan, Richard

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Cawsey, Ian

      (Swansea E)

      Challen, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chidgey, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Barnes, Harry

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Barrett, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clwyd, Ann

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Coleman, lain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Colman, Tony

      Beith, RtHon A J

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benton, Joe

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cotter, Brian

      Best, Harold

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cox, Tom

      Blackman, Liz

      Crausby, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Brake, Tom

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      David, Wayne

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Davidson, Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Dawson, Hilton

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burden, Richard

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bumham, Andy

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burstow, Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Cairns, David

      Doughty, Sue

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      589

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keetch, Paul

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kemp, Fraser

      Etherington, Bill

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Fisher, Mark

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Flynn, Paul

      Khabra, Piara S

      Follett, Barbara

      Kidney, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lady man, Dr Stephen

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lammy, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Laxton, Bob

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Gilroy, Linda

      Leslie, Christopher

      Godsiff, Roger

      Levitt, Tom

      Goggins, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Grogan, John

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Lucas, Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Luke, lain

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Lyons, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hancock, Mike

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Harvey, Nick

      McDonnell, John

      Havard, Dai

      MacDougall, John

      Heath, David

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Hendrick, Mark

      McKechin, Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Heyes, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hill, Keith

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hinchliffe, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      McWilliam, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Mann, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marris, Rob

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Martlew, Eric

      Hurst, Alan

      Meale, Alan

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Merron, Gillian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Illsley, Eric

      Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Miliband, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W &Hessle)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mole, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Moore, Michael

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Morley, Elliot

      Joyce, Eric

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Mudie, George

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Mullin, Chris

      590

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Norris, Dan

      Southworth, Helen

      Oaten, Mark

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Squire, Rachel

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Organ, Diana

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Owen, Albert

      Stunell, Andrew

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tami, Mark

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Perham, Linda

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, David (NW Lebs)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pike, Peter

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pond, Chris

      Thurso, John

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Touhig, Don

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Pugh, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Purnell, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rammell, Bill

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Tynan, Bill;

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Walley Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Watson, Tom

      Rendel, David

      Watts David

      Robertson, John

      Webb Steve

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      White Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Emie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Roy, Frank

      (Swansea W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Mrs Betty Brecon

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Willis, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Wilson, Brian

      Sanders, Adrian

      Winnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wood, Mike

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wray, James

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Simon, Siôn

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Claues 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      COMMENCEMENT
      —This Act shall not come into force until after the Commisssion established under section7 of the 1997 Act shall have

      591
      laid a report before both Houses of Parliament on progress made in decommissioning since the coming into effect of the 1997 Act.' —[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and his colleagues the hon. Members for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and for North Down (Lady Hermon).
      As everyone can see, the object of the new clause is to ensure that, before the Bill comes into force, a report is made to Parliament by the international commission and General de Chastelain. I assume that, if a report is made to Parliament in those circumstances, one will also be made, if it so wishes, to the Dail. Decommissioning is clearly a joint matter. Indeed, we know that a lot of the arms concerned are south of the border.
      When I drafted the new clause, I in no way wished to be discourteous to the Republic or the Dail—far from it. It would be discourteous to put before the Committee a new clause that assumed that anything particular should happen in Dublin. That is not our business, but for the avoidance of doubt I make it plain that if our Irish colleagues followed the same line of argument that I shall set out, the report would be made there. I do not wish to alter the essential balance of the decommissioning process as one involving both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Both sides are equally committed to its success.
      I tabled the new clause because there is a general feeling across the parties and throughout Northern Ireland that one of the weaknesses of the structure set up in 1997 was the lack of provision, or the lack of clarity of such provision as there was, for reporting. I do not blame our predecessors in 1997 for any such shortcoming and certainly not General de Chastelain or his colleagues. If there are any shortcomings, they are in the arrangements that were made in 1997 and the provisions that were passed at that time.
      No blame is directed towards our predecessors in 1997. We learn from experience. Indeed, it would be unnatural if, after five years—we are compelled to roll over the regime; the Government have defeated our amendment, so the regime will be rolled over for five years rather than one in the first instance—we could make no improvements or draw no lessons from the provisions that were put through the House five years ago.
      The Bill introduced five years ago was the background for the agreement between the two Governments in August 1997. Article 4(d) of that agreement laid a duty on the commission
      "to report periodically to both Governments and, through whatever mechanism they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland."
      What has been unsatisfactory is that it has not been absolutely clear whether the reports that have gone to the two Governments have been limited to those that have been published by the two Governments.
      The agreement stated:
      "through whatever mechanism they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland."
      592
      Did that mean that the two Governments had direct responsibility for reporting to the participants in the agreement and not to the public as a whole? There is still a certain amount of ambiguity. We do not know whether General de Chastelain has told the Governments more than he has told the public in the series of very brief, bare press announcements that he has seen fit to make over the past five years. I would like to hear from the Minister. It would reassure many hon. Members if we felt that we knew a little more about what was going on, and whether the Government have had other reports from General de Chastelain, or have received only the documents that we have received.
      Would the Minister be kind enough, if she has a moment, to note that question down either mentally or on a piece of paper? It would be very nice, if she catches your eye later, Mrs. Heal, to have an answer. Have the Government received any reports in addition to those that General de Chastelain has made public?
      If the Government do have any information that has not been put in the public domain directly by General de Chastelain, has information been passed on selectively to any of the participants in the process? Such selective passing on would be consistent with the terms of the agreement that I read out, but it would be an undesirable way of proceeding. It would cause considerable concern if some participants had information that other participants did not. It is what we would have called in my City days a false market. It would have been the basis for all kinds of rumours and speculation and be very damaging to the process.
      It would be nice to know that the Government know nothing other than what we all know as a result of the public statements, but that has not been said explicitly; perhaps it could be said by the Minister.
      Jane Kennedy: It may help to clarify matters if I say at the outset that all of the reports that we have received from the international commission have been published in full. Therefore, we have no information that is not in the public domain.
      Mr. Davies: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for responding so promptly to my request and giving us that clear assurance. It is extremely helpful.
      Let us focus on the kind of reporting that we have had from the international commission and General de Chastelain, and decide whether to take the opportunity to indicate to the commission or the general that, in future, we would like reporting to be conducted on a slightly different basis. Reporting is currently, formally at least, to the two Governments. The Minister has just said that the two Governments do not keep the information to themselves; they have passed on everything that they have available. She implies that the Government will continue with that procedure. If so, I very much welcome that.
      In a debate such as this, it would be unnatural not to be frank about the fact that, in some quarters in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in this country, the feeling has been expressed that the reports have been so restrictive and discreet that it has been difficult to form a clear view of what is going on. I do not want to criticise General de Chastelain for that, because he must take the decisions himself. He bears responsibility for ensuring that the process is conducted as effectively as possible and that

      593
      anything that he does contributes to the progress of decommissioning and does not interrupt it. I therefore understand his nervousness, when he comes to put pen to paper, in deciding what kind of report to provide.
      General de Chastelain would accept, however, that it would be unfortunate if his reports gave rise to widely differing interpretations of the situation that they sought to depict. To read some of his reports has been like divining the Delphic oracle: it has been difficult to be clear about the interpretation that one should place on the words used. One word that constantly comes up is "significant", which General de Chastelain used to describe the welcome but belated act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA at the end of October.
      The uncertainty has been made worse because of the interventions of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on Second Reading.
      Mr. Swire: Earlier in our debate, the Minister of State said that the decommissioning that had occurred was "important", whereas the word that we have heard used to date is "significant". Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that words are so crucial—indeed, they are all that we have to go on because we do not know the details of General de Chastelain's findings—we must know whether the amount that has been decommissioned is important or whether there has been an important step in the decommissioning process?
      Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because he bears out the danger of too restricted a use of words. If the only description given to an act of decommissioning is a simple adjective such as "significant" or "important", nobody knows whether significant differs from important, or whether important is more or less than significant. Nobody knows quite how to interpret those statements, and the statements themselves become the subject of an enormous amount of speculation. Rather than contributing to credibility and public confidence, they contribute to a sense of uncertainty and dispute. That is extremely regrettable.
      Jane Kennedy: I do not want to be mischievous, but what I actually said was "credible".
      Mr. Davies: Those words are all subjective. What is credible? What is significant? What is important?
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assess how the Minister could deem it to have been "credible" without knowing the amount of weapons that have been decommissioned. One could say that the very fact that decommissioning occurred made the event significant, but to say that there has been a credible act of decommissioning surely requires the Government to know the amount of decommissioning.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an irrefutable point. If all that the Government know is what General de Chastelain said in public—they have just told us that that is the case—which is that the event was significant, nobody in the Government can take responsibility for using any other adjective than "significant". To use any other adjective adds to the meaning in a way that is not based on knowledge of the facts. It is therefore a completely irresponsible use of language. I entirely
      594
      endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments. If the Minister would like to intervene again, I shall give her the opportunity to do so.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hunter: On the word "significant", does my hon. Friend recall that General de Chastelain acknowledged that even one round of ammunition was significant? That suggests that the word "significant" is subject to a variety of interpretations.
      Mr. Davies: Indeed.
      When I took the first of that series of interventions I was interrupted from reaching for my copy of Hansard. I was about to read to the Committee some remarks that are enormously pertinent to the point that we have reached in our debate. The hon. Member for Belfast, East said:
      "In the desire to know and to test what the general considers significant"—
      he refers, of course, to General de Chastelain—
      "my colleagues and I went to see him. We asked if the commission considered the amount of weaponry to be significant, or whether the fact that anything at all had occurred was significant. He replied that the fact that an event took place was, to him, significant. He said that he had seen written on the gable ends of walls in republican areas, 'Not a bullet; not an ounce'. In that context, what had happened was significant, he said.
      I asked whether the general regarded his meeting with us that day as significant. He said that yes, it was. That might give the House some idea of how easily he is persuaded that any event is of significance."
      The key point in the quotation is this:
      "I then asked him whether, if the IRA had decommissioned one gun—just one—he would have considered that to be significant. He said, 'Yes, I would.—[0fficial Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 84.]
      That quotation from Hansard is, I fear, extremely—dare I use the word?—significant. It is also—advisedly, let me add a word of my own—extremely worrying, because that statement has cast a great deal of doubt on whether the act by Sinn Fein-IRA was meaningful, if "significant" carries the sense of meaningful.
      Lembit Öpik: What specific proportion of guns and weapons would the hon. Gentleman regard as significant? He must have a benchmark in mind if we are to make sense of the points that he is making.
      Mr. Davies: No, I do not. The drift of my argument is, and will be, that this is not a sensible way of conducting a reporting process. That is why the Opposition tabled the new clause, which seeks to improve the reporting process. I do not wish to be too prescriptive. It would not be right, having given the international commission the task of overseeing decommissioning, to be too prescriptive about what it does. I do not intend that Parliament should send the commission some kind of form to fill out every time there is an act of decommissioning. That would be absurd.
      However, I take this opportunity to say that I believe that a major contribution could be made to the credibility of the whole exercise and to the confidence that people have in its completion if General de Chastelain could be given an opportunity to set out in writing, objectively and in his own hand, an account of the progress that he believes he has achieved over the past five years. I understand that he would be in an invidious position if he

      595
      simply made a public statement in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. General de Chastelain probably feels that he could not possibly be in the business of responding to statements made by Westminster or Stormont politicians, or politicians who happen to be in both those Parliaments.
      The new clause seeks to give the General the opportunity to give an account of the whole of the past five years and to set the record straight where necessary. I leave it to General de Chastelain to decide whether, in the light of the reported conversation that he had with the hon. Member for Belfast, East, he thinks that there is a need to set the record straight. I also leave it to him to use such language as he thinks is appropriate in such a report. However, I express the personal hope that if he does so—and if the Committee agrees the new clause, he will no doubt do so—his comments will be, as far as possible, factually based, if not to the extent of itemising every item of ammunition, ordnance or armaments that is handed over because I can see that there may be arguments for not doing that. In that way, people will be able to measure progress towards the shared aim of decommissioning.
      Mr. Barnes: I wish to check the purpose of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is an attempt to obtain full reports from de Chastelain, but it says that the Act will not come into force until a report is produced. Therefore, one consequence of the new clause might be to delay the implementation of the legislation. How much is that a consideration? That would mean that if de Chastelain made a nil report, it could still be a mechanism under which the Act would be implemented.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is sensible to make our proposal in the form in which it is expressed in the new clause. I believe that it is. We have plenty of time before 26 February, if we act on an agreed basis here and in the other place, to make progress on the Bill and pass it into law so that we can continue the regime seamlessly beyond that date. If the Government accept the new clause, I see no problem. The Bill will go forward in its amended form, so that is not a practical problem.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked what would happen if the general produced a nil report. That would be a depressing event, but the sooner we knew about it the better. There can be no merit in continuing with a false process, with everybody under the impression that progress has been made when it has not. Progress has been made apparently, in terms of the first Sinn Fein-IRA decommissioning in October. I greatly welcomed that at the time and regarded it as significant progress. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I was wrong and that only one rusty old musket was handed over, or a single bullet—something insultingly small—that would be very worrying, but the sooner we knew that that was what had happened, the better. There can be no merit in brushing reality under the carpet, and it is certainly wrong to do so in a democracy. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the process is a facade is horrific, but if the effect of the new clause were to be to bring forward the publication of such bad news, it would be better than to continue to conceal it. I have explained the rationale behind the proposal and
      596
      I assume that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied, as he is about to leave.[Interruption.] My comment may mean that he will delay his dinner by a few minutes.
      I express the hope that if the new clause is accepted, General de Chastelain will say something about the criteria or circumstances that would enable him to determine that the process has been completed—as we all hope he will one day—because it would be helpful for the credibility of the exercise and have a positive effect on public confidence. There will never be a time when not a single illegal weapon exists in Northern Ireland, because that will never happen in any human community. There are illegal weapons in Lincolnshire, for example, but they are not a major problem and I trust that they never will be. However, it is not possible to state categorically that no illegal weapons exist in any one region of the earth. That is not a reasonable expectation.
      What would constitute the end of the process? What would enable the general to make that determination? I hope that his answer will not be that he will never be able to say that. If so, by definition, the Belfast agreement will never be implemented and the peace process will never be concluded. Anyone who has made concessions—and the Government have made many more than were necessary—will have made them in vain. Public confidence would collapse if the exercise were to lead nowhere. The general is a man of great distinction in his profession, as are his colleagues, and I cannot believe that they would preside over such a process if they thought that they could not honestly and effectively make a determination that the process had been concluded.
      What would be the criteria for determining that the process had concluded? Those who have studied natural sciences are used to the discipline that before launching an experiment one must state the thresholds that it must meet before it can be said that it has proved something. We similarly need to know what hurdles must be overcome before the final determination can be made, in the right circumstances and when all parties have made the requisite contribution to the decommissioning process. The general has not been asked to comment on that point and it would be wrong for him to have a casual conversation and throw out some informal suggestions on such a matter. It would be better to make a considered and objective statement, such as in a report to this Parliament. I assume that the report would be made in parallel to the Dail.
      I have explained the intention behind the new clause, and I hope that the Minister will agree that nothing that I have said runs counter to the Government's objectives and hopes. I hope that the Government will not contract that dreadful old Whitehall disease of "not invented here" and use that excuse for not accepting the new clause. If they do accept it, it would be helpful in continuing the process and enhancing public confidence in it.
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: I commend the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). He demonstrated conclusively that the new clause has all the potential of a wrecking amendment that would halt the peace process. That should not be allowed to happen. We wish to make progress with the peace process as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said earlier when he quoted the words of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) about the need for a series of small steps and an increase in the use of the democratic process
      .
      597
      I welcome the Minister's confirmation that the IICD reports are all in the public do main and will presumably remain so. We need to move forwards and it is useful to know what is happening, but the future of the Bill—or of the peace process—should not depend on that.
      7 pm
      If we were given a report that gave the impression that not much progress on decommissioning had been made, that could be used by the Opposition to reject the Bill, and by IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups to say that they need not do anything to further the process. We cannot allow that position to arise.
      Most of the debate on decommissioning focuses on the IRA, as Sinn Fein members have positions in the Northern Ireland Executive. However, we cannot forget that loyalist paramilitary violence has been the most prevalent in recent months. At every stage, we must remind ourselves of loyalist violence. Those groups must also feel pressurised into decommissioning their weapons.
      On behalf of my party, I oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Hunter: I am amazed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). She began by saying that she objected to the new clause because it was a wrecking amendment. In fact, it is the very opposite. It is a strengthening measure, and an effort to breathe life into the decommissioning process. To present the new clause as an attempt to wreck the process of decommissioning beggars belief.
      The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the decommissioning process should be a series of small steps. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who moved new clause 1, would argue that the new clause is indeed one of those small steps. It is a way to inject confidence into the decommissioning process
      Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for the overwhelming majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland, confidence will be found not in the presentation of reports but in the visual demonstration of the destruction of weapons and explosives? Does he also agree that the hope and confidence engendered initially when the Loyalist Volunteer Force first visibly destroyed illegal weapons is what is required? Unionists need to see something being decommissioned to believe that the process is going ahead. After all, nationalists see observation towers being demolished.
      Mr. Hunter: I strongly agree. My hon. Friend is surely right to say that the real test of confidence ultimately will be the visible and practical process of on-going decommissioning. I do not quarrel with that argument at all. Indeed, I endorse it, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me while I develop my own argument, which is that, on the way to that ultimate objective, there is a place for reports that are more detailed and substantial than those submitted by the general.
      The hon. Member for Cheadle opposed the new clause, and appeared to argue that it would be dreadful if a report were negative and indicated that not much progress had been made. However, do we want the process to continue on the basis of a lie, or of ignorance? if no substantial progress has been made with decommissioning, it is
      598
      imperative that we know about it. I am appalled that a serious argument can be built on the basis that it is better to be ignorant than to know that something is going wrong.
      Lembit Öpik: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the symbolism associated with the first step towards decommissioning is the core point here? I have heard Conservative Members say that they are satisfied that the IRA took a landmark decision to begin the decommissioning process. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that, more than the numbers of bullets or ounces of explosives involved, is the core point that we are discussing?
      Mr. Hunter: I do not accept that argument, although I wish that I could. I might be able to accept it if I knew precisely what happened that day in the autumn when the decommissioning event took place. However, as I do not know that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. That is the heart of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford was right to argue that a defect in the 1997 Act is that it imposed insufficient specific requirements on the person whose role in due course was taken over by General de Chastelain.
      I remember the deliberations, when the 1997 Act was going through the House, about what should be included in it. At the time, it was believed that the provisions of the Act would prove sufficient. The advantage of hindsight and the experience of the intervening four years show that the provisions were inadequate.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) makes my argument for me. If we knew in detail what the IRA had done in the autumn, we could join the Government in saying that it had been a credible event. I think that "credible" was the word that we finally homed in on, but other words that might apply would be "significant" and "important". Yet we do not know what happened, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford that it is essential that fuller and more detailed reports should be given to the Government, and then to Parliament and the Dail. That would allow us to make a considered and rational judgment about whether the actions of the Provisionals—and, one hopes, of the loyalist organisations in due course—can command confidence.
      For those reasons, I feel strongly that the new clause should be supported.
      Mr. David Wilshire: I shall come to the Minister's rescue. I wrote down what she said when she said it, as I wanted to comment. I can therefore confirm that she said that the IRA had performed a "credible" act of decommissioning. I wanted to ask what that meant. I hoped that she was going to tell the Committee but, when goaded, she added that the Government knew nothing else.
      Jane Kennedy: Perhaps it will help the debate if I were to say that an act of decommissioning would be deemed to be credible if it satisfied those specifically charged with ensuring that arms were dealt with in accordance with the scheme that had been laid down.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is fascinating, and a perfectly reasonable point. I would go along with it, if the Minister

      599
      could say what had been decommissioned. That would allow us to judge whether the act had been credible. If we knew what had been decommissioned I would go along with the Minister, but she cannot tell us, as she also said that the Government know nothing else. I therefore do not know how we can decide whether the action in the autumn was credible.
      I should like to be able to decide that the act was credible. I have been one of those who have maintained that the agreement will not work. I have always said, when I have intervened on this matter in the House, that I would be happy to stand up one day and say that I got it wrong. I really would like to do that, but I will not be in a position to say that I got it wrong until the Minister or someone else can tell me what has been decommissioned.
      A credible act of decommissioning is the key to this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a point that I very much wanted to make when he said that in some people's opinion one bullet, 1 g of Semtex or one gun would be important. Historically, the weaponry and explosives that were held in sacred trust for the cause were not for Sinn Fein-IRA to give away, but one gun would be. However, that does not lead us to the Minister's view that one gun will be significant; rather that has led to a group of people who still subscribe to the belief of no surrender and no decommissioning breaking away from the IRA. Therefore, it is not enough to say that such a move on decommissioning is credible because some IRA members are prepared to go along with something.
      The Minister also said that this measure was reasonable because decommissioning was a long-term process. For it to be a long-term process, a lot of material must be decommissioned. There is not much else to do, and what there is will not take five minutes. If the Minister can justify the Bill by saying that decommissioning is a long-term process, I assume that she knows that there is a large amount of material to be decommissioned; otherwise, how can it be a long process? Yet she has told us that she does not know more than we do. The argument that decommissioning is a long-term process and that all our concerns are unreasonable falls on the Minister's admission that she does not know any more than we do.
      I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will consider accepting the new clause.
      Jane Kennedy: I think that I said that implementing the Belfast agreement is a long process. We have seen the start of decommissioning, which is when the debate about what is credible, significant and important started. The start of decommissioning is important and should be acknowledged.
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, if that is what the Minister said or intended to say, I readily accept that. It is not what I understood her to say, but I will not make an issue of it. I accept entirely what she says and tomorrow's Official Report will provide clarification one way or the other.
      I ask the Minister to consider accepting the new clause, which I judge to be very modest. I do not believe it to impose a strenuous requirement. Indeed, it is with some trepidation that I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that he could have
      600
      made the new clause even stronger had he wanted. In her very brief contribution, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred to a negative report. The new clause merely requires the general to say something; I think that it would be helpful for him to tell us something rather than just say something. To say that nothing had happened would prompt us to ask whether to go down this route; to say that only one gun had been decommissioned would be pretty negative.
      If the report is submitted to Parliament, as the new clause proposes—and I say this as much to those on my Front Bench as to the Minister—it should include an assessment of the overall quantity of arms and explosives that are to be decommissioned. There is no way of judging significance until we know how much the commission thinks is to be decommissioned. In addition, it would be enormously helpful to know how much of that the commission has actually seen. I suggest that that information should be required to be laid before Parliament. Then we can begin to assess what has been going on.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful in such a report if the inspector could confirm that he stayed until the end of the process and did not leave IRA men with the weapons that had allegedly just been put out of action?
      Mr. Wilshire: I have a long list of items that I think should be included in a report, but that is not one of them, so I am eternally grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to the list. I shall come to some of the others shortly. However, my hon. Friend makes a very relevant point: unless we see what is going on for the whole of the process, how do we know whether it is credible or significant?
      The report, after assessing how much material there is and saying how much the commission has seen, must state how much material has been put beyond use. Credibility can be determined only when we know how much material is beyond use. I understood the general to say not that a significant amount of arms had been decommissioned but that the event was significant. Given that, historically, parts of Sinn Fein-IRA have always said that they will decommission nothing, we come back to the general's point that even one bullet, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, is a significant event. So that tells us nothing. We have to know how much has been put beyond use.
      We also need to know how such material was put beyond use. The arms and explosives could be put beyond use in such a way that they were still usable. I imagine that some in the terrorist organisations would honour their commitment to give nothing away by sealing something up while knowing that as long as it was still usable, they had not destroyed it. If material had been put beyond use in such a way that, if it could be reached, it could be used, the report should say what arrangements were in place for the repeat visiting of the sites to ensure that, once sealed, material could not be used without breaking those seals. We would need to be assured, in more than one report, that inspections were continuing so that weapons were permanently beyond use.
      If the report is to include an assessment of what the commission considers to be the total quantity of material, we would need to know how it came by that information.

      601
      To what extent has the commission had any dealings with the security services or the police in Northern Ireland or in the Republic? If it has not had any such liaison, where has it got its information about how much material is to be decommissioned? Presumably the only other way of finding out is to listen to the terrorists, and I would not take anything they said at face value.
      Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I must try to resist this urge to intervene; it is a very bad habit, and as a Whip I would have discouraged it. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause would impose no such requirements on the commission to include that kind of detail? It would require the commission to say nothing new. That is why I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) was right to query the motives behind the new clause, which would not achieve the objectives set out by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Lady, as a former Whip, will know the lack of wisdom of intervening. She will also know that for an existing Whip, such as myself, speaking is not held to be a particularly useful activity either, so she may have some sympathy. Her point highlights why I said, as gently as possible, that some of my comments were aimed at both Front-Bench teams.
      I accept what the Minister says; if she does not like this new clause but agrees with the principle, it is open to her to say that she will table another one that will go even further. I would be delighted if she was willing to offer us that, and would come into the Lobby with her. However, she does not appear to want to intervene again, so she clearly has the habit under control.
      The Minister rightly said earlier that there is a tendency always to talk about Sinn Fein-IRA. I believe that we should all put it on record as often as possible that the purpose of this debate—indeed, of any debate about decommissioning—is the decommissioning of all weapons and explosives, irrespective of who holds them. Perhaps we can do business with Sinn Fein-IRA; I do not think so, but other people do. However, the weapons and explosives are moving to another group of people who will not hand them over, so dealing with only one organisation, from whichever side of the divide, will never be adequate.
      What worries me most about resistance to the new clause is the spin that is being put on these proceedings: why should the Opposition be concerned? Why should we be trying to change the legislation when what is going on is positive? The word "significant" is being used positively. The word "credibility" has come up. All sorts of comments have been made about the fact that we are making real progress with decommissioning, yet the truth—rather than the spin—is that we simply do not know.
      Thus far, the loyalist paramilitaries are the only people to have done anything—a point that is overlooked. The general Unionist community in Northern Ireland has seen almost nothing. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) made the point that watch towers had been taken down, so the nationalist community had seen some result. The Unionist community has seen nothing that reassures it, yet it is from that community that the major concessions have come throughout the process.
      602
      It is not too late to introduce a confidence-building measure—the whole debate on the Northern Ireland peace process has consisted of such measures. The Unionist community needs a confidence-building measure to show that there is transparency in the decommissioning debate. The people of Northern Ireland as a whole need reassurance that, in return for the concessions that they are making, there really is credible decommissioning.
      The Minister could be proved right by accepting the new clause and then saying, "Look, this is what has happened. That is why you should feel reassured". Until that happens, however, I shall take the secrecy and the refusal to explain anything as meaning that nothing has been going on and there is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Until that is put right, the people of Northern Ireland will not be content.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: When I read the new clause yesterday I was not terribly enthusiastic about it. During the debate, I realised that it could not do much harm, but when I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), I was convinced that such a provision was essential. The hon. Lady made the case well.
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), however, put his finger on the matter: for an hon. Member to suggest that a nil report or a negative report from the commission might be used as a reason to oppose the Bill, or an extension to it, shows clearly that the party in question wants to hide behind a lack of information and would much prefer vagueness and ambiguity; and that to have the facts out in the open might lead the Committee to do something that it would not do if those facts remained hidden. As ever, the Liberal Democrats are the aides and accomplices of the Government; they have acted in accord with the Government on all these matters. It is thus clear that when Liberal Democrat Members make such comments, the Government are speaking through them.
      The hon. Lady put the point forcefully. Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) I, too, have been jotting down the remarks of various Members. The hon. Lady said that we could not allow that position to arise. What position can we not allow to arise? Is it the one in which the House of Commons would have the facts made available to it? That is the position of the Liberal Democrats.
      Lembit Öpik: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for decommissioning, but he will note that the proposal, about which he wisely expressed scepticism, does not specify the nature of the report. Surely he must agree that even if the proposal were included we would have no more information than we do at present. Will he explain what he considers significant? His case would be strengthened if he could describe, for comparison, the measures of success that he would use for a more specific report.
      Mr. Robinson: During my remarks I shall deal with those issues. If I forget to do so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remind me.
      It is essential that facts be made available to the Committee on which we can base our conclusions. As regards the precision of the amendment—to address the

      603
      first of the hon. Gentleman's points—it might have been better to specify that the general should give precise details of each type of weapon and explosive, as well as the weight of the explosives and the number of weapons that have been decommissioned, so that we could draw conclusions. If the general reads the report of our debate—I suspect that he has plenty of time on his hands—he will know what information we seek.
      In relation to the hon. Gentleman's question about significance, no one in the House could judge whether the amount of weaponry was credible or significant unless there was a clear appraisal of the amount of weaponry currently available to the Provisional IRA and each of the loyalist paramilitary groups. The judgment as to whether an amount is significant should also include information as to whether it forms a significant proportion of the weaponry.
      An attempt was made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) to detail the weaponry believed to be available to the Provisional IRA and to the loyalist paramilitaries. That seemed to provoke the Government. Some of their Back Benchers thought that to list the scale of weaponry available to paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland was uncalled for. However, only when there is a common understanding of the amount of available weapons can we judge whether the event described as "significant" by the general really was significant or credible.
      We know that at least one gun, one ounce of explosive and one bullet were decommissioned because the commission refers to all three categories.
      Mr. Trimble: More than one.
      Mr. Robinson: More than one gun, one bullet and one ounce of explosive—that is referred to directly in the general's statement.
      I think that the scale of weaponry available to the Provisional IRA as outlined by the hon. Member for Reigate is correct, so if the amount was only two or three guns, a couple of pounds of explosive and half a dozen rounds of ammunition, can the Government actually come to the Dispatch Box and say that it was credible? I do not believe that they could do so. Could they say that it was significant? They certainly could not say that it was a significant amount of weaponry compared to the total available to the Provisional IRA.
      I must take the Minister to task when she uses the word "credible". Although one might say that the occurrence of the event had significance—the House might at least allow the Government to say that it was significant that an event took place—to use the word "credible" speaks of quality and quantity. It talks about the proportions, not merely the significance of the event. It relates to the scale and the impact of decommissioning. The Government are attempting to spin what the general and the commission said beyond what is justified.
      Jane Kennedy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are talking not about the amount but about who describes the act as significant? That is about the integrity of the IICD. That is what I was saying was credible.
      604
      If the general describes the amount as significant—as he did—the Government are satisfied that there was a credible act of decommissioning.
      Mr. Robinson: The Minister is in a hole and she should stop digging. In reality, the only word that anyone is entitled to use is "significant", because that is the word used by the commission. To use that word, we need to recognise what the commission means by it. What the Minister might consider significant might not be considered significant by other hon. Members. So we are not simply talking about the difference between—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) wants me to give way, I shall do so—instead of which she consistently chirps away from a sedentary position and never contributes to the debate.
      7.30 pm
      Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robinson: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who does make a contribution.
      Lembit Öpik: In an attempt to curry favour with the Government, may I ask a related question? I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the proportion of guns handed in would be the only meaningful measure, but is it not within the realms of possibility that the people who would have to inform us how much weaponry they have might be tempted to lie about it? That has always been the underlying difficulty with an objective statistical measure of what proportion has been decommissioned.
      Mr. Robinson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks in those terms about the security forces in Northern Ireland. They are, of course, on record as having briefed Members of Parliament and the press very considerably on the extent of the weaponry held by the various groups during the past few years, and several reports on the extent of that weaponry have been made available publicly.
      Everyone has a reasonable grasp of the amount of weaponry available at least to the Provisional IRA. A lot less is known about the amount of weaponry in the hands of the loyalist paramilitaries, but I suspect that they have a lot less than many people in Northern Ireland, and perhaps some of their own members, think they have. All weapons must be decommissioned, irrespective of whether an organisation has half a dozen or 600 weapons, and the Bill must apply to all of them.
      Whether one uses the words "significant" or "important" makes no difference to the community's ability to comprehend what the general is actually saying, unless one has some idea of what is significant to the general. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the Conservative party spokesman, quoted some of the comments that I made during my last speech, which followed the meeting that my colleagues and I had with General de Chastelain and his team.
      We dealt with several issues at that meeting, the first of which was that the general was unable to tell us, because he did not know, where he had been. He did not know where the event had taken place. Secondly, he did not tell us what type of weaponry had been put beyond

      605
      use. He would not tell us what amount of weaponry had been put beyond use, nor would he tell us how it had been put beyond use, but he did tell us, under questioning, that he had left whatever product was at the scene in the hands of those whom he had met on the site—the Provisional IRA.
      The general was therefore asked whether the process could be reversed. It was his judgment that it could not, but unless hon. Members know what method was used to put the weaponry beyond use, we cannot determine whether it would be possible to undo what had been done. Clearly, from all that the general and his colleagues told us, there was no evidence, which we could have taken on board, to suggest that a significant amount of weaponry had been decommissioned in a way that would have been satisfactory to us or, indeed, to other hon. Members. There was no evidence to suggest whether a significant proportion of the weaponry available to the Provisional IRA was involved.
      The general told us very precisely that there was no programme for further decommissioning, however. No such programme had been agreed. If there is no programme for decommissioning, we are entitled to deduce that this was a gesture, a token and a stunt—some people have called it cynical; others have grasped it as a great event. As it stands, it is a one-off event, until the general has a programme that will lead to total decommissioning. That is the only kind of programme that will convince the people of Northern Ireland, provided that it is fulfilled at each stage.
      During the debate, reference has been made to the value of agreeing to the new clause, given that there may be some delay before the general could provide such a report. There is no substance to the argument that this is a delaying tactic. No one could reasonably argue that, if the Committee were to agree to the new clause, the general would drag his feet in providing the House with the necessary report. I am pretty sure that the report would be forthcoming as quickly as the general and his team could put it together.
      I believe that such a report is necessary because it would provide us with a starting point, showing where we stand at present, but what is essential is that in a year's time, when the House decides whether to extend the provision for a further year in a ritual that it would undertake for at least another five years, it would know from the report available to it under the new clause what progress had been made in the intervening year. The House would therefore know whether extending the period had any value, or whether we were simply going through a process by which the Government were attempting, by spin and hiding behind an ambiguity, to pretend that the process was on-going when, in reality, the Provisional IRA was not delivering, but was gaining all the benefits of being part of a process.
      Chris Grayling: May I begin my remarks by briefly apologising to you, Mrs. Heal, and the Committee for the fact that I had to miss the first part of these proceedings because of a Select Committee meeting?
      Having listened to most of the debate on Second Reading, I felt strongly that I wanted to speak in favour of new clause 1. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for the new
      606
      clause, because it goes to the heart of a key issue in the process: if we are to ensure that progress towards peace in Northern Ireland and progress towards decommissioning take place, checks and balances will be needed along the way.
      I come to this issue very much as a fresh player; I am a new Member of Parliament, without deep or long-term experience of Northern Ireland affairs. In many ways my perceptions have been shaped in the same way as those of the British public, not only in mainland Great Britain, but to an extent in Northern Ireland. The impression conveyed today is of a largely one-way process. That impression is clearly left as we see the events unfold.
      If that impression continues, the implications for the future of Northern Ireland are very serious indeed. That is why it is particularly important to include checks and balances in the process, so that we ensure that we do not continue, step by step, down the road, with concessions coming from one side, but not the other. If one side keeps giving way and making the concessions in any process of negotiation, the result is bad and unworkable. As we go forward, it is tremendously important that concessions come from all sides involved in the process, not just from one.
      When I look back at what has happened since 1997, I see the release of prisoners, and Sinn Fein-IRA members joining an Administration in Northern Ireland and becoming Ministers in the United Kingdom. Steps have been taken such as that involving the amnesty for prisoners on the run, and Sinn Fein Members of Parliament have been given access to the facilities of the House.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering wide of the new clause.
      Chris Grayling: Thank you for that clarification, Mrs. Heal. I am trying to make the point that the process requires the kind of checks and balances that the new clause represents. If we do not have such checks and balances or ask whether we are involved in a one-way or two-way process, the Government will continue step by step to offer concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA and we will not have a balanced process that will create confidence.
      The new clause would significantly improve the Bill because it would require the House to take stock of the exact situation in the decommissioning process before the Bill became law. As we have heard, there has been a dramatic reduction in the amount of violence and an act of decommissioning has taken place. That is a major stepߞsome would say an historic step. There is no doubt that the decommissioning that has taken place has not happened before in the recent history of Northern Ireland. We should pay tribute to the efforts of all involved and to General de Chastelain and his team for securing it. However, it is also important to remember that it was only a gesture that was, in many ways, forced by the determination of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford referred to the fact that we have limited knowledge of the gesture that has taken place. There is still a vast arsenal of weaponry out there and the IRA is still active in some respects. I very much hope that

      607
      violence will tail off, but can we be sure that it will if there is not a further step in the decommissioning process? So before the Committee takes the next step and renews the Bill, we should say that, at the very least, we want to hear from General de Chastelain about the current situation and whether there has been or is expected to be further progress towards decommissioning.
      Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, since the implementation of this process, there has been the very reverse of a tailing off of violence? For example, since 1999, the number of casualties resulting from paramilitary-style attacks has risen from 207 to 302 now. That is the reverse of what was suggested earlier.
      Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is still trouble in Northern Ireland and weapons are still being used. There is no clear sign that we have taken the first step in a steady process of decommissioning. There is every possibility that what has happened is a one-off. Before we make further concessions and send further signs to Sinn Fein-IRA and to all involved in acts of violence in Northern Ireland that the House and the Government will play their part in a continuing process, we must, at the very least, ensure that a check and a balance are in place to make sure that others are with us. The new clause is important, because we must not move on to the next phase unless and until we know more about the decommissioning process.
      If the Committee rejects the new clause and the Bill is enacted, we shall send a message to Sinn Fein-IRA that the next step will take place regardless of their participation and regardless of gestures from them and further progress on the decommissioning of weapons. The new clause would provide a mechanism to review progress and to give the House greater certainty before it takes decisions that are fundamentally important to the future of Northern Ireland and this country. It would provide the House with a safety net against a lack of progress in decommissioning.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) were involved in an exchange about the concept of a nil report. Surely if there is a risk of a nil report and a risk that General de Chastelain will come to the House to say that there has been no further progress on decommissioning and that there is no sign of any, that factor should be considered before we take further steps to implement legislation that will extend the relaxation of the laws of this country to allow decommissioning to take place at an indeterminate point in the future. Full information must be on the table in front of us before the Bill becomes law.
      7.45 pm
      The new clause drives to the heart of the issue. We must go down the path of decommissioning in the full knowledge that concessions will be made by both sides. Members of the House and the Government must be confident that that will happen, because the people of this country and the Unionist community in Northern Ireland demand it. That is why the new clause is so important. It is a signal, a statement, a check and balance and a safety
      608
      net for the House. I commend it to the Committee, and I very much hope that the Minister, even at this stage, will change her view and support what would be a constructive addition to the Bill.
      Mr. Barnes: First, I wish to clarify what is meant by a nil report. Such a report could only be about recent developments that had taken place since arms had begun to be put beyond use. Opposition Members are keen to have a detailed report that would tell us what was behind the de Chastelain report that talked about the significant putting of arms beyond use.
      Although there could not be an entirely nil report, there could be a nil report on recent developments. The point is that whatever the report's importance or size, it would trigger the measures in the legislation that allow it to operate. The proposal for a nil report is a mild one to obtain something from the commission, but that does not mean that it is not worth while to attempt to obtain one.
      The new clause is a sort of halfway house, but that does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with halfway houses. However, it does not meet the aspirations of a number of Conservative and Unionist Members, especially those of the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). They want the commission to produce a report for the House that would tell us the lot and that would be fully open. We would therefore know exactly what arms had been put beyond use, where they were and what proportion they formed of the total arms held. That would be difficult to establish as no one would know whether all the detail had been provided. That approach is consistent with the approach that those Members have taken for a considerable time as they are opposed to the Belfast agreement.
      However, those Members who went along with the Belfast agreement see some difficulties with insisting that more and more details are provided. Some of the terms on which the agreement was accepted were based on the understanding that the issue of decommissioning would go to a commission and that we would take the commission's word. It is legitimate for those who opposed the agreement to continue their no campaign and to seek to uncouple the measures that happen to be before us. That is what they are doing.
      Although the agreement was a compromise, was associated with all sorts of difficulties and was obscure on some issues, those of us who support it must at least try to clarify matters slightly. However, it is difficult to pursue some issues further, and that is why the new clause says what it does. It does not state what the nature of the report should be because it is trying to attract the support of those who would like very detailed information to be made available. However, it tries to jog things along.
      Although putting the issue in someone else's hands and depending on their report is not the best solution, most of us accept the logic of doing that. In the circumstances, that was the only way to square the circle so that further action could be taken.
      Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, but his case presupposes that decommissioning as an act is an end in itself. If he reflects on the agreement, he will recognise that that is not so. The end is, in fact, confidence building.

      609
      Decommissioning was one of a number of measures that were designed to build confidence in the process. My problem, which has also been articulated by other hon. Members, is that if the act lacks credibility because it is not transparent, it does not have the effect of building confidence. That is the point, and it is why detailed reports from the independent commission are important. They need to convey something of what has happened to achieve the end of confidence building.
      Mr. Barnes: I take the point that the measures were associated with confidence building. There has been an attempt to build almost an artificial centre in Northern Ireland and to draw people to it out of the agreement. As people co-operate, they gain understanding and become less worried and their confidence in the process grows. I agree that the information that the commission feels able to make available and that it is encouraged to produce is worth while, especially as Provisional IRA decommissioning is important when it comes to the worries and fears of the Unionist community.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I do not want to pull the carpet from under the hon. Gentleman, but his argument is built on the premise that the supporters of the Belfast agreement, and especially its architects, signed up to hand over all responsibility for decommissioning to the decommissioning body and that they have no independent judgment on the matter. Where in the Belfast agreement does it say that they cast that role into the lap of the decommissioning body and do not want to hear anything more about it?
      Mr. Barnes: It is not that that role was given over entirely, but there was agreement that it would be part of the mechanism of the procedures. People had many ideas about what they were signing up to, and that is what is important. We are trying to hold people together. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is, and always has been, implacably opposed to the agreement, and that it is legitimate for him to use anything that affects Northern Ireland which is brought before the House to advance his case. However, some of us stand on different, and not easy, ground. We try to draw different people together in difficult circumstances. The logic of the argument of the hon. Gentleman and people who think like him is not given great consideration by us.
      Let me say something in favour of the words "credible" and "significant" as used by de Chastelain. One set of people that they upset considerably, and who it is worth while upsetting, are members of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein. The more they think that there has been a reasonable and important handing over or destruction of weaponry, the more that affects their traditional feelings and attitudes, and the more they are disenchanted by the process and by those who are involved in the political process. If it were spelled out that massive decommissioning was taking place, they would be even more disenchanted. The act of decommissioning might not be as significant as some of us would wish, but it is a reasonable avenue to pursue. The perceptions of people within the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein are important in how we advance the process.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has moved away from the pertinent question asked by the
      610
      hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). May I bring him back to it? There is nothing in the Belfast agreement to preclude the report that we propose. The Act that the House passed five years ago laid the basis for the intergovernmental agreement that provides for reports. All we are doing as we renew that Act is to improve the reporting procedure in the existing structure. It is absurd to suggest that anyone who is in favour of the Belfast agreement cannot support the new clause.
      Mr. Barnes: I was not arguing that. I was saying that the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Belfast, East and some other hon. Members want to go beyond what is contained in the new clause. That reflects their initial disagreement and current disenchantment with the Belfast agreement and the developments since it was reached, although it is not the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. That is why I described the new clause as a halfway house. It tries to get better information and greater clarity into the process and to put a bit of pressure on the commission, but it does not deliver what some Opposition Members hoped it would.
      I am not saying that what the new clause attempts to achieve is inconsistent. However, it is legitimate for those of us who support the Belfast agreement now to debate the reasonable way forward in the circumstances. How decommissioning is interpreted by certain republican forces and people within Northern Ireland is an important consideration.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East made an interesting point about the distinction between the words "significant" and "credible". He engaged in a good piece of language analysis. He showed that "significant" could be used to describe a significant move to which the commission might respond. However, there is another use of "significant". Was the decommissioning itself significant and credible? De Chastelain tells us in the report that the amount of decommissioning was significant; he does not say that it was merely a significant act.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: That is precisely what the general does not say in the report. He says that the event was significant, not the amount of weaponry, and he confirmed that both to the Ulster Unionist party and to the Democratic Unionist party delegations that went to see him.
      Mr. Barnes: Perhaps the general felt that the move was significant, which it was, and that even if a small amount was involved, it was also significant.
      Jane Kennedy: This is the first chance that I have had to listen to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in a debate. He advanced an eloquent argument in support of the new clause. He almost persuaded me until I re-read it and was struck by the thought that we were not reading the same thing. He described the new clause as important and as something that offered a check and balance on the process. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) described it as a wrecking measure. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that that was not so and that it was a strengthening measure. A number of other Conservative Members made that same case.

      611
      Before I say what I think about the new clause, I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and some others.
      I understand the thirst for information felt by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. Several contributors to the debate have described their dissatisfaction with the lack of information about the act of decommissioning described by General de Chastelain. I accept that that position is not merely born out of the hon. Gentleman's party's opposition to the Belfast agreement. It has been genuinely expressed by hon. Members from other parties too.
      I say again to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others who have spoken in the debate what I said earlier in interventions: by describing the act of decommissioning as credible, I meant that if it satisfies those whom we have charged with ensuring that arms are dealt with in accordance with the scheme, we accept that it is credible. Hon. Members have the right to disagree with that assessment, but that is our firmly held view.
      8 pm
      It must be remembered that General de Chastelain has said publicly that if he thought that progress was not possible, he would say so. We must therefore have confidence in his assessment when he says that an act is significant, or when he says that he believes that further progress is possible.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford speaks of the rationale for the report, but there is currently nothing to prevent the general from issuing a report making an assessment of the decommissioning process over the past five years. However, we should leave to him and his colleagues the decision about whether to do so. I do not see how requiring him to do so before the Bill can be commenced serves any useful purpose in ensuring further decommissioning.
      As drafted, the new clause would confer on the commission a power to lay before Parliament a report, while imposing on it no obligation to do so, thereby leaving the commencement of the Bill entirely at the commission's discretion. The new clause is clearly intended to secure for parliamentary scrutiny information not currently in the public domain. However, the commission would be at liberty to submit a report saying nothing new. Even if it were accepted, the clause would not achieve the desired effect. The hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Basingstoke and others accepted that in the debate.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady's arguments do not carry conviction. Clearly, if the commission decided that there was no purpose in continuing with the process, and no merit in enabling the Bill to come into effect, on the hon. Lady's own criteria there would be no point in continuing with decommissioning. I do not see that her argument works at all.
      Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman misses the point, but I shall not go over it repeatedly.
      The reporting responsibilities of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning are well established. They were agreed between the Conservative
      612
      Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and are set out in the treaty between our two countries. The IICD reports periodically, as we heard, to the two Governments, as is required.
      The House entrusted to General de Chastelain and his colleagues the business of ensuring that arms are put permanently beyond use in accordance with the decommissioning schemes. Having given them that task, we must respect their considered view on how best to achieve it. It is absolutely right that we should want to have periodic reports from the decommissioning commission. We all want to see an end to the use of illegally held weapons and explosives on the streets of Northern Ireland, and we look to the commission to provide us with news of progress.
      The new clause would unfairly restrict the commission; it is constitutionally questionable; and it would harm the prospects for further decommissioning by imposing an unhelpful deadline. Since July 1999, the decommissioning commission has issued 12 reports. That averages out at about one every two to three months. The last report was published in October. I have every confidence that we can look forward to another report some time in the near future, but at the right time. That must be for the commission to decide on the basis of its work.
      Making the commencement of the Act dependent on the publication of a report takes the power to legislate out of the hands of elected Members in this place and gives it to an unelected body. I find that highly questionable, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford got the new clause past the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I do not doubt the commission's integrity and I do not suggest that it would not act wisely, but I find the principle suspect.
      In addition, making the commencement date conditional in that way would impose further artificial deadlines on the process. It would impose a deadline on the commission to produce a report by a set time, whereas the House agreed that the commission should be allowed to decide such matters for itself. It would impose a deadline on decommissioning, because, as hon Members know, if the Act does not come into force on the day specified there is no indemnity in place for those who do want to engage in the decommissioning process.
      As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, we do not believe that the pressure of the 26 February deadline was a factor that influenced the IRA's decision to decommission. That decision was more likely to have been influenced, as we have said, by the persistent application of pressure by Governments in the UK, in Ireland and in the United States, and also by the events of 11 September and the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      As I said, we have made it clear on numerous occasions that we do not believe that the imposition of deadlines is helpful. Indeed, our view is quite the contrary. They damage the process, instil distrust and undermine confidence. I explained during the earlier stages of the Bill why deadlines do not put pressure on others to act, but in fact remove it. They give to those who want one an excuse to walk away and an opportunity to blame others for a

      613
      failure to act. We want to keep the pressure on. We do not want to give any group an excuse to disengage. For all these reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: With permission, Sir Alan, I shall speak briefly. The hon. Lady's comments confirm me in the view that we were right to table the new clause. I am extremely sorry that she cannot accept it. She has shown herself to be wrong on the facts. It is not true that the House decided that the commission should report on dates of its own choosing—it decided no such thing. The provision for reports and the rules for reports are those that I quoted earlier in the debate, and they are in an intergovernmental agreement—the one dated August 1997. The House has never had an opportunity to decide the basis on which reports should be made, the timing, the content or anything of that kind.
      We have taken the opportunity to try to ensure that the House should retrieve the position and should in future have some influence over the timing of the reports. In introducing the new clause, I said that we should not seek pre-emptively or prescriptively to determine the content of the report or the matters covered. That should be left to General de Chastelain.
      Jane Kennedy: I want to clarify my remarks. I said that the terms under which General de Chastelain would report were agreed between the then Conservative Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, as set out in the treaty between the two Governments.
      Mr. Davies: Now the hon. Lady has made two mistakes. First, she referred to the House having decided, but as I explained, the House did not decide. Then she referred to the Conservative Government; in fact, it was the Labour Government. The intergovernmental report dates from August 1997. That is some months after the election, which I expect the hon. Lady remembers.
      The hon. Lady is wrong on fact and in her logic. She suggests that our proposal is inconsistent in principle with the agreement. Of course it is not, because the principle that there should be reports was accepted in the intergovernmental agreement. All we are proposing is that we learn the lessons of the past five years and try to improve the reporting process. I have set out at some length the way in which we believe it is necessary to improve the process.
      This debate has been extraordinarily revealing and resonant. I was just saying privately to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that when I tabled the new clause I did not anticipate that there would be such a general feeling that we needed to take in hand the issue of reporting and introduce greater discipline into that very important part of the process. Labour Members and the Secretary of State still seem to be unaware—if they perceive the problem, they are trying to hide the reality from their eyes—that, sadly, the absence of any understandable or unambiguous commission reports is in real danger of undermining public confidence in the way in which the commission is monitoring the decommissioning process. That can only be very damaging to confidence in the peace process as a whole.
      What I described earlier as the Delphic nature of General de Chastelain's reports is clear. Far from generating a sense that all must be well because we can
      614
      simply trust the general, the reports have led to the kind of serious doubts that have been expressed by representatives of several Opposition parties. It must be in the interests of the commission and of the peace process that those doubts and uncertainties are removed. If the Minister cannot do any better, all we can do is place the matter in the hands of the Committee of the whole House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 357.

      Division No. 125]

      [8.11 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heald, Oliver

      Amess, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hermon, Lady

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hoban, Mark

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Horam, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Baron, John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Key, Robert

      Bercow, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Boswell, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brady, Graham

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lidington, David

      Bums, Simon

      Loughton, Tim

      Bumside, David

      Luff, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Cameron, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      (Chipping Bamet)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Clappison, James

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Collins, Tim

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Cran, James

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Osbome, George (Tatton)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Page, Richard

      Dodds, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      Prisk, Mark

      Evans, Nigel

      Randall, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flight, Howard

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangtord)

      Flook, Adrian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gale, Roger

      Selous, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gray, James

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Grayling, Chris

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Spink, Bob

      Hawkins, Nick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, John

      Steen, Anthony

      615

      Streeter, Gary

      Viggers, Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Waterson, Nigel

      Swire, Hugo

      Watkinson, Angela

      Syms, Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Trend, Michael

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Charles Hendry and Mr. David Wilshire.

      Tyrie, Andrew

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Ainger, Nick

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Allan, Richard

      Clwyd, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Coaker, Vemon

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Coleman, lain

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Colman, Tony

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Connarty, Michael

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Austin, John

      Corston, Jean

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Bames, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barrett, John

      Crausby, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Battle, John

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benn, Hilary

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Benton, Joe

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      David, Wayne

      Best, Harold

      Davidson, Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brake, Tom

      Doran, Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doughty, Sue

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Etherington, Bill

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

      Bumham, Andy

      Flynn, Paul

      Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Caims, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      (NE Fife)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caton, Martin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gidley, Sandra

      Challen, Colin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chaytor, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      616

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lucas, lan

      Grogan, John

      Luke, lain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Lyons, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hancock, Mike

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hanson, David

      McDonnell, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      MacDougall, John

      Harvey, Nick

      McFall, John

      Havard, Dai

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Heath, David

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McKechin, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hendrick, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWalter, Tony

      Heyes, David

      McWilliam, John

      Hill, Keith

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mann, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Marris, Rob

      Hood, Jimmy

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Meale, Alan

      Hughes, Beveriey (Stretford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Miliband, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Illsley, Eric

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jamieson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Mudie, George

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Joyce, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Olner, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      ÖOpik, Lembit

      Khabra, Piara S

      Organ, Diana

      Kidney, David

      Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Owen, Albert

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Perham, Linda

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Picking, Anne

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pike, Peter

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Lammy, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Pond, Chris

      Laxton, Bob

      Pope, Greg

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Pound, Stephen

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Levitt, Tom

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Purchase, Ken

      Linton, Martin

      Pumell, James

      Lloyd, Tony

      Rammell, Bill

      Love, Andrew

      Rapson, Syd

      617

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Tami, Mark

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robertson, John

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Thurso, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooney, Terry

      Todd, Mark

      Roy, Frank

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Ruane, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Ruddock, Joan

      Trickett, Jon

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Truswell, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tyler, Paul

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tynan, Bill

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      (Swansea W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Willis, Phil

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Brian

      Southworth, Helen

      Winnick, David

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Squire, Rachel

      Wood, Mike

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woolas, Phil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Wray, James

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Ian Pearson and Dan Norris.

      Suteliffe, Gerry

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.26 pm
      Dr. John Reid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Obviously, as we are dealing with questions of violence and guns, the House would expect me to say something about the terrible events of this afternoon and this evening in that context in north Belfast. A number of police have been injured in north Belfast and I think that I speak for everyone in the House when I once again commend the courage and dedication of those in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who so often have to stand between two communities. I obviously condemn utterly the renewed violence around the Holy Cross school in Ardoyne. It would be a tragedy if the progress made last year in resolving this dispute were thrown away, and if the children of north Belfast and the decent people of Northern Ireland were to have their lives and reputations betrayed by people acting like thugs and hooligans, from whatever quarter of the community they come.
      618
      The people of Northern Ireland deserve better and I believe that they fully support those in the devolved Administration and the local community who are trying to promote peace and reconciliation. They and everyone in the United Kingdom utterly reject those who seek to spread conflict and violence. In a debate in which we have had our differences, I am sure that those sentiments are reflected largely throughout the House and in all parts of it. So to anyone engaging in rioting in Belfast tonight, I say this: the people of Northern Ireland reject your violence, which belongs to the past, and the people of this House also reject that violence.
      In asking that the Bill be read the Third time, we search, as always in such a debate, for common ground. Unexpectedly, I suppose, there is a degree of unanimity throughout the House on at least one thing: as one would expect, and as became clear on Second Reading in December and in Committee today, the House is unanimous in wanting to secure the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons in Northern Ireland. Where there are differences between us, they relate only to how best to achieve that objective.
      It was clear in the exchanges between the contributors to the debate tonight that for the most part we are discussing, in essence, the practicalities. Most of the discussion centred on the question of deadlines, on the danger of sending the wrong signals, and on the need to maintain the pressure to decommission.
      As I made plain on Second Reading, the achievement of progress in any of those areas, including decommissioning, benefits both from a degree of contextual progress on other issues and from a degree of pressure. The question of deadlines—or as others may call them, time frames—is to some extent a matter of judgment. It seems to me that there is a view among some Opposition Members that it is essential to impose deadlines if we are to succeed, and that deadlines will ensure success. On that, I am afraid that we will have to agree to differ.
      Of course we need a time frame in which to operate, but neither my hon. Friend the Minister of State nor I, nor any other member of the Government, believe that deadlines and public ultimatums will necessarily achieve the objective that we all share—nor, indeed, that they are always helpful. In any case, as has repeatedly been made clear during all the stages of the discussion on this issue, there will have to be not only a time frame that breaks down into 12-month periods, but a debate every 12 months. Not only—
      Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Dr. Reid: I shall certainly give way to my right hon. Friend, if he will let me finish my sentence first.
      Not only is there a time frame broken down into 12-month intervals, but it is open to anyone, depending upon their judgment in such matters, to declare that that time frame is a deadline. Indeed, before I give way I shall make a prediction: before we discuss this subject in the House next time round, many hon. Members, some on the Opposition side of the House, will declare the date of our next debate on the issue to be a deadline.
      Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State is making somewhat heavy weather of the deadline aspect, but

      619
      before he started to do so he said that decommissioning had occurred partly as a result of pressure. That was also the position adopted by the Minister of State earlier—that decommissioning was produced by pressure from a series of events. Of course a deadline itself can provide pressure, so the Secretary of State is probably going too far in trying to rule deadlines out completely—although he is probably doing that simply for the purposes of the debate on the Bill before us.
      May I put to the right hon. Gentleman the point I put to the Minister of State earlier? So far there has only been one act of decommissioning. The Government have announced a programme of normalisation and a series of events aimed at normalisation. Will the Secretary of State continue with that programme even if it is not matched by continuing events and progress on the decommissioning track? Would it not be in his interests, and in the interests of all of us, for him to be prepared to delay those measures until there is equivalent progress on the decommissioning track?
      That might not be a huge pressure, but it would be some pressure. If there were any indication from the Government at this stage that they were prepared to put on pressure in the event of a failure to progress on decommissioning, there would be no need for others to put on pressure. I assure the Secretary of State that if he fails to apply pressure, I will put pressure on—at a time and in a manner of my choosing.
      Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman raises an eminently reasonable point and an eminently valid question, which deserves an answer a little longer than a curt yes or no.
      Normalisation in Northern Ireland and its society is an objective that we all wish to see. It should be the objective of any civilised Government to achieve a normal society—but there is another responsibility for any civilised Government, which is to protect the lives of their citizens. In the promotion of human rights, the most fundamental right is the right to life, and the right to live free from threats to that life.
      The extent to which we can normalise or reduce the military presence—which is not a cause of the troubles, but a consequence of the threat—depends, therefore, on the assessment of whether lives can be protected at any given level of military presence. Any decision that we take on the presence of military or security forces in Northern Ireland is dependent on an assessment of the threat, not on any deal being done. There is no automatic increase or decrease, no rolling programme upwards or downwards, irrespective of the circumstances. We can attend to the normalisation process only if there is a continuing reduction in the threat.
      The right hon. Gentleman was correct in his implication—he did not say it explicitly—that one of the elements that allowed us to reduce the military presence and, for example, to take down the two towers, was the reduction in the threat as a result of decommissioning. There are other elements involved in the assessment of the threat, not least the dissident republican threat, in connection with which there have been some successes over the past few months. We continually analyse the threat and if, as a result of the advice that I receive from
      620
      those who analyse these matters for me, I feel that there is leeway for reductions, I will take that action. If there were another act of decommissioning, for instance, that would allow some further reduction, but I always have to say that against the background of a threshold from the dissident republicans. That is as full an answer as I can give to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Trimble: I am focusing on the Secretary of State's comment that the act of decommissioning was a circumstance that enabled an assessment to be made that the threat level was lower, and therefore facilitated certain normalisation measures. Equally, a failure to follow through on that initial act of decommissioning or to make further progress could be regarded as a significant event relating to further acts of normalisation. Although the Secretary of State did not make it explicit, it seems to be implicit in what he is saying that it is open to him to regard a failure to continue to decommission as a basis on which to make a judgment regarding further normalisation. I would ask him not to leave that simply as a possibility, but to consider using it in a way that would effectively put pressure on republicans. The significant effect of that would be that, if the Government were taking action, it would reduce the pressure on others to act, but if the Government were not acting, it would become inevitable that others would have to do so.
      Dr. Reid: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I take no great issue with his logic. There are two aspects involved in the assessment of any threat; one is intention, and the other is capability. While I fully understand the great stress on quantity—the capability issue—in General de Chastelain's report, people should never forget that an essential element in assessing a threat, or the lack of one, is people's intentions. That was also significant as regards the decommissioning event. The prolonged period during which it was obvious that what had started as a process was never intended to be a process is, therefore, an issue that one would have to take into account in assessing the threat.
      The only other point that I would make in counterbalancing that is that the threat from the Provisional IRA that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about is by no means the only threat in Northern Ireland. We see threats from loyalists and, particularly in the border areas and south of the border, from republican dissidents. I would like to take this opportunity to say that those who so avidly seek the demilitarisation of areas such as south Armagh should place the responsibility for the necessary consequential presence of the military and security forces in south Armagh where that responsibility lies. At present, that lies largely, though not exclusively, with those dissident republicans who insist on maintaining the intention of murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland in order to impose their will.
      I have given as full an answer as I can to the right hon. Gentleman on this issue.
      David Burnside: I seek further clarification of threat and intention. We discuss the threat of international terrorism as much as we discuss domestic terrorism. Does the Secretary of State include in threat and intention the further and greater evidence coming out of Colombia of the involvement of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein in international terrorism linked to FARC? Does he include

      621
      that in his assessment of threat and intention? It seems to many Members of the House that the threat is no longer domestic, but international.
      Dr. Reid: Any relevant factor would be taken into account by any reasonable person, and that includes the point that the hon. Gentleman made. On Second Reading, I said that the events that led to an act of decommissioning were probably much more complex than people allowed for, and they included the actions of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the events of 11 September, the long-term commitment that was made by the Sinn Fein leadership, which perhaps did not affect the timing but was one of the elements and we should not dismiss it, the attitudes of the British Government, the Irish Government and the United States Administration, and the world context. These are complex matters.
      I understand the passions that dates and deadlines arouse, but we should not assume that, by declaring a deadline, we are putting in our hands a weapon that forces others to take actions, or that if used irrespective of circumstances will always help us to achieve the end objective. That is the point that I was making before I gave way to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Reid: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I must make a little progress.
      Mr. Robinson: Could the Secretary of State tell the people in the "cold house" in Northern Ireland how it is that the assessment of risk lowers when the Provisional IRA carries out a non-specified act of decommissioning, but its failure to take that any further does not have a contrary effect on the threat to decommissioning?
      Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is an intelligent man, and he will understand that the Provisional IRA has carried out an act that is unprecedented in Irish history—not just in the history of Northern Ireland, but in Irish history, with the exception of a number of pikes that were handed over in 1798. Any reasonable, intelligent person must take that into account when assessing the intention of the people with whom one is dealing.
      The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, if there is no continuation of the process that has begun, people may make an adverse judgment. Of course people may make such a judgment, but we should not assume that, by setting a deadline, especially within a time frame that allows us to debate it every year, we can predict with precision the multifaceted complexity of the political decisions that we may have to take six months, nine months or, for heaven's sake, two and a half years down the road.
      Conservative Members have a particular view on deadlines, whereas the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists have a deeper, practical understanding of the difficulties, which is also exhibited by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit ÖOpik). If the deadlines had worked as effectively as we were led to believe by speeches today, and if they had had to be imposed as rigorously as was implied, we would never have taken the peace process beyond May 2000. That was the deadline, and no Opposition Member suggested what we might have done in May 2000.
      622
      When we passed that deadline there was another deadline, in June 2001—and when we passed that there was another deadline, as it happened, imposed by the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. After six weeks, the whole Assembly would have fallen. There was then another deadline, because I suspended the Assembly. I do not think that creating the illusion that deadlines of themselves, especially if publicly declared, are always helpful, and constitute tablets of stone that will be observed by everyone—including the IRA and the loyalists—is being entirely honest with those who support the current process.
      Some Members have suggested that, in continuing to provide the legislative framework within which decommissioning can take place, we are somehow sending a signal to paramilitary organisations that they need not decommission—that we are making decommissioning less rather than more likely. On the contrary, we are sending the signal that we will place no obstacles in the way of decommissioning, that there is no excuse for prevarication, and that in striving to ensure full implementation of the Belfast agreement—including the putting beyond use of all paramilitary weapons—we will not be found wanting.
      I think many Members have missed the point that I just made. If deadlines had been strictly maintained, the act of decommissioning in October last year, historic though it was—whatever questions have been asked about it, I think everyone accepts that it was historic—could not have taken place. At the June, or May, deadline, action would have been taken that would have made it impossible, subsequently, for the IRA to decommission.
      We all agree that pressure must be maintained if full decommissioning is to be achieved. I think that pressure, and dedication, must also be maintained if we are to bring stability to the Northern Ireland Assembly—if we are to go beyond just the legislation of human rights, and encourage people to adopt the culture. There is much debate about the level of military presence at any given stage. Of course pressure is involved in all those contexts. We in Government can play our part in maintaining it by, among other things, demonstrating our good faith to the international community.
      I do not believe that the process that has been caricatured today as a one-way process of concessions has been anything of the kind. I do not believe that only one side of the community has benefited from the acceptance of the principle of consent regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I do not see that as a concession to the Unionists; it is a basic principle of democracy for all the people of Northern Ireland.
      I do not accept that the abrogation of the territorial claim to the north by the Irish Government was a concession to Unionists. It was a recognition of the democratic decision and will of the people of Northern Ireland. Nor do I accept that the introduction of human rights, or equality of opportunity, is a concession to the republicans. It is the basis for a modern, decent, democratic society, as is inclusive government.
      When we do these things, we do things that are good in themselves; but—this is the main point in the context of tonight's debate—we also do things that enable us, through recognition of the rectitude and legitimacy of our efforts to secure a decent, civilised, normal, peaceful Northern Ireland, to extend our own legitimacy in the eyes

      623
      of the international community. When I say "us", I mean the Government and those who support the Good Friday agreement. As a result, we bring pressure to bear on those who claim the deficiencies of democracy as a basis on which to use violence. Therefore, there is a much more sophisticated and complex debate, discussion and programme of action going on than is sometimes allowed for by some Opposition spokesmen.
      Mr. Donaldson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Dr. Reid: I will. It was remiss of me not to wish the hon. Gentleman and everyone else in the House a happy new year before I started.
      Mr. Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes, and I am sure that he could find ways of making 2002 a very happy year for me and for the people whom I represent, in Lisburn in particular. If he believes the point that he is making, will he elaborate on why in a recent speech he said that there was a danger that Northern. Ireland would become a "cold house" for Unionists?
      Dr. Reid: If the Deputy Speaker does not rule me out of order, I did not say that it was a "cold house", which was implied by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I said that we must not allow it to become one. There is a danger of that. Sometimes, there is a natural assumption outside Northern Ireland in the international community that, in a period of change from conflict to peace, with all its difficulties, the people who by definition must have the greatest difficulty are the minority population. I was trying to make the point that that is not necessarily the case. There are equal difficulties for those among the majority population in Northern Ireland, who have to come to terms with issues concerning their own identity, and with not only agreeing and discussing but sitting in government with those who have been their enemies for so long and engaged in terrorism. Those are huge difficulties that no one in the international community should fail to recognise.
      I hope, although the hon. Member for Belfast, East may not agree, that I, fellow Ministers and others try to recognise that. From the response, it appears that we do not always get it right but I was trying to raise the issue. I read all the responses, some of which were by him and his colleagues. I hope that the fact that we raised the issue was a measure of our recognition of a problem that had to be addressed. In deference to Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is giving me the gimlet eye, I will go no further down that road tonight.
      Many hon. Members seemed to miss the points that I made earlier. I admit that I was not here for the whole debate because of difficulties in north Belfast. I would like to have been here and I apologise to the House for that, but while I was here and listening, I hardly heard any Opposition Member mention loyalist decommissioning. I do not notice people saying, "Yes, we did."
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Yes, we did.
      Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman did mention it after an intervention by the Minister of State—I happened to be
      624
      in the Chamber at that point. She reminded him about loyalist decommissioning, but the reality is that loyalist decommissioning has not even started.
      David Burnside rose
      Dr. Reid: In deference, there has been no loyalist decommissioning with the exception of a small number of guns that were handed in at the beginning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. I accept that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to imply that there is not a huge way to go. I do not mean to separate one side and weigh it in the balance; I am merely saying that, given the problems that we have to address with decommissioning, we have a huge road to go. We have achieved a historic step, even though deadline after deadline has been passed, and we have done so in particular international circumstances. However, this concerns not just the Provisional IRA; a large number of groups, even those on ceasefire, have a huge way to go in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Blunt: I understand why the Secretary of State could not be present throughout the whole debate. However, Opposition Members have concentrated on the holding of weapons by loyalist terrorists and a number of hon. Members in the debate spoke of the need for decommissioning on all sides. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that hon. Members have properly concentrated on all the parties that illegally hold weapons.
      Dr. Reid: As I said, I may have missed that. In any case, I was seeking not to score partisan points but merely to say that the problem that we still face in continuing the process is pretty huge.
      I understand the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members. When the original decommissioning legislation was passed in 1997, we all shared the hope that full decommissioning would be achieved within the five years for which it provided. Perhaps that was the euphoria of the agreement; perhaps it was the wish that our dreams and hopes would be fulfilled. Obviously, I am disappointed that that has not proved possible.
      When the Belfast agreement was signed in 1998, we all took heart from the aspiration of all the signatories that decommissioning would be completed within two years of the referendums endorsing the agreement. Now that five years are drawing to a close, I share the regret that our expectation has not been fulfilled. However, I ask the House to consider the enormous progress that has been made towards securing a permanent resolution to the problems that have blighted Northern Ireland for decades. I have already said that I do not believe that the process has been all one way; nor do I believe that it has been a process of concessions.
      We should ask ourselves whether we should countenance measures that would in any way lead, on balance, to the possibility of squandering the gains that we have made. I do not believe that anyone in the House thinks that we should do so. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that we operated more in hope than in expectation. We certainly have more cause for positivity now than we had in 1997 because at that stage the IRA was not even on ceasefire. Truly historic progress has been made.

      625
      In the midst of all the passions that these issues raise, Members of this House who have been involved in the great measures of the past few years—I do not refer to myself, because, like most Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, I am a fairly transient figure; there is a rapid velocity of turnover in Northern Ireland—whatever their misgivings, should not diminish the capacity that they have displayed and the results that they have achieved in terms of changing Northern Ireland. Let us remember what it was like 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
      I understand when people say to me, "Yes John, but not peace at any price". We do not have a perfect democracy or a perfect peace, but let us never diminish the historic steps that we have managed to take. If we are to make progress, whatever our frustrations, we must provide the legal framework for further decommissioning by republicans and loyalists. We must work to bring within the process even those dissidents and rejectionists who are currently outside the process. The police on both sides of the border continue to be successful in frustrating their attacks. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in congratulating the Garda Siochana on the recent arrest and charging of the six individuals associated with dissident republican activity. There has been some success, but I say that without any complacency, because I fully understand that one terrible successful attempt by those dissident republicans would have appalling consequences. However, I congratulate the police services on both sides of the border on the sterling work that they have done to protect the people of Northern Ireland from that dissident republican activity.
      I hugely regret that decent, ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland are still open to the threat of such attacks and to the sort of violence that we have seen this afternoon. I regret to tell the House that it has flared again this evening, with burning barricades, the use of petrol bombs, a crowd of some 300 attacking the police line and the firing of plastic baton rounds. Sooner or later, those people will come to realise the futility of their position and the destructiveness of their actions. When they do, we will provide the means by which their weapons can be put beyond use once and for all.
      I am the last to think that the process is easy for anybody in the House. Peace is not won easily and democracy is not built quickly. It is a long, messy and slow process that, precisely because of its imperfections, gives rise to a natural desire to have those imperfections removed. The Bill provides part of a framework that can address the building of peace and democracy. If it can do so, both are great undertakings to continue, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
      9.2 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: It was a characteristically generous and warmhearted gesture by the Secretary of State to start by wishing a happy new year to all of us and to the people of Northern Ireland. We of course reciprocate those wishes. I have never suspected that anything was amiss with the right hon. Gentleman's intentions and I have no doubt that he wants to do the right thing and is energetic and conscientious in trying to do it. However, I am concerned by some of his methods and I begin to wonder whether the problem stems from some fundamentally muddled thinking. There were three glaring examples in his speech, and although I do not wish to be controversial, I must draw his attention to them.
      626
      The Secretary of State mentioned concessions. He said that the peace process was not a process of concessions and that many of the things that had been done—he mentioned human rights—had been properly done on their own merits and should have been done anyway. I agree, but that is to misuse—not deliberately, I accept—the concept of concession. A concession is something that is done, not on its intrinsic merits, but as a price for something else. I hope that the Secretary of State does not think that the premature release of criminals with blood on their hands—multiple murderers—should be done on its intrinsic merits. He would not suggest that other serial murderers held in our jails should be let out much earlier than those who have committed more minor crimes. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously suggest that early release was not a concession. It was a concession. It is muddled thinking—though I do not consider it anything worse than that—to assume otherwise.
      Equally, I do not believe that the Secretary of State, in his heart of hearts, thinks that changing the rules of the House to accommodate Sinn Fein-IRA MPs was justified on its own merits. Had that been the case, the Government should have introduced the change as part of their parliamentary reform measures after 1997. They could have said that people who do not want to take their seats and be here all the time should have some other status, because that would be a good way to run our democracy. However, the Government did not say that. We all know that they had no intention of introducing the change on its own merits, but that they did so as a concession.
      The failure to see that distinction is a fundamental failure of straight and clear thinking. If the Secretary of State believes in new year resolutions, I hope that he will try to introduce greater rigour to his thinking. That would benefit us all.
      A second and striking example of the Secretary of State's thought processes was revealed when he criticised me for being absurd in supposing that deadlines would always and necessarily lead to success. However, I did not say that, and I never suggested it. I noted that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "always" and "necessarily", as I wrote them down when he was speaking.
      When moving the first group of amendments this afternoon, I explained at considerable length that we did not believe that deadlines were some sort of panacea. Deadlines do not necessarily achieve a purpose, and I said specifically that many factors, pressures and influences determined decommissioning. I said that that was true of the very welcome act of decommissioning carried out by Sinn Fein-IRA in late October.
      The Minister of State is no longer present, but she mentioned the American and Irish influences that have a bearing on the matter. The Secretary of State has also referred to those other influences. The deadline is therefore just one of many influences.
      Our debates would be clearer if the Secretary of State examined the questions put to him, and I should be happy to give way to him on this matter. I said that deadlines have an influence which is exerted in one direction. In other words, a longer deadline will not shorten the time taken to perform the obligation in question. By the same token, a shorter deadline may cause the necessary action to be performed sooner.

      627
      In many cases, of course, deadlines will be missed, but they have an influence, and it works in only one direction. In so far as it has an influence at all, a shorter deadline will have the effect of making more rapid the conclusion of the necessary task. Lengthening the deadline may make no difference, but if an influence is exerted it will be in the direction of ensuring that the task or action takes longer.
      I do not want to embarrass the Secretary of State by quoting again his remarks on Second Reading, in which he acknowledged that people go "down to the wire", to use his phrase. However, I think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.
      Dr. John Reid: I shall intervene, but only to take advantage of the hon. Gentleman's invitation to benefit from his intellectual rigour. The hon. Gentleman said that deadlines work only in one direction. Does that mean that he thinks that there are no circumstances in which the public declaration of a deadline might make the action that he wants to be taken—in this case, decommissioning—less likely to be taken?
      Mr. Davies: Yes. I do not believe that shorter deadlines in the Bill would mean that—
      Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for applying his intellectual rigour to a question that I did not ask. I did not ask about the length of the deadline. The hon. Gentleman has said three times, categorically, that deadlines can work in one direction only. Let us assume, for example, that the hon. Gentleman wants a person to act in a given manner. Will he say whether he thinks that there are any circumstances under which the public declaration of a deadline to be imposed on that person could have the effect of inhibiting that person from acting in that manner?
      Mr. Davies: It is possible that the deadline will have no effect. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that shortening a deadline—[Interruption.] That is a different question about deadlines. Let me be specific. There are certain situations—and this may be what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at—in which a deadline is not an appropriate instrument to use and will not help to achieve the objective. In those circumstances, it is better to have no deadline. However, when a deadline is used, longer deadlines will lengthen the completion time, whereas shorter deadlines, if they have any influence at all, will shorten the performance of the action required. Is that an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question?
      Dr. Reid: It is not. As the hon. Gentleman has an amazing capacity for intellectual rigour, the problem must be my phrasing of the question. I will attempt to phrase it again. I am not asking about situations in which there are no deadlines or about shortening deadlines. I thought that it was quite plain that I was asking the hon. Gentleman to apply his renowned mind to the following question: are there any circumstances in which the public
      628
      declaration of a deadline to be imposed on people whom we want to act in a given direction will cause them to be less likely to act in that way?
      Mr. Davies: The answer to that is yes, and I have acknowledged that already. I have said that there are circumstances—
      Dr. Reid rose—
      Mr. Davies: I have given the right hon. Gentleman the short answer, which is yes. I am about to give him the explanation for that answer, which is not much longer, and then I will give way to him again.
      I repeat that there are circumstances in which a deadline is not an appropriate or sensible method and imposing one will have a counterproductive effect. That is the first category. The second category is when deadlines are appropriate and will have an effect. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman unambiguously that if a deadline is an appropriate mechanism and if the object of the exercise is to advance or accelerate performance, it is sensible to have a shorter deadline. If the object of the operation is to lengthen performance, it is sensible to lengthen the deadline. Is that a clear answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question?
      Dr. Reid: The first answer was extremely clear. The hon. Gentleman finally answered my question about whether there are circumstances under which the public declaration of a deadline can actually inhibit or be counterproductive, and he said yes. Will he therefore reflect on his earlier statement that deadlines work only in one direction? As a deadline can, by his own admission, encourage action towards the desired end or be counterproductive and move action away from the desired end, it patently can work in both directions. I would like the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's intellectual rigour here.
      Mr. Davies: This is a very interesting discussion. Indeed, it is more like an exercise in formal logic, but I am happy to pursue it. This is a two-stage process; there is nothing complicated about that. The first stage is to decide whether a deadline is an appropriate instrument to use. The answer to that may be yes or no. It is a binary system, and very simple really.
      David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: As I am involved in a logical argument, I suppose that I had better pursue it, after which I will give way.
      There are only two stages here. The first is to decide whether a deadline is appropriate. If not, it will have a perverse effect and may damage the objective. When one has decided whether a deadline is appropriate, one has to decide whether it is intended to lengthen or shorten the process that one is trying to influence. This seems so intuitively sensible that I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman is making such heavy weather of it. I think that everyone outside the House listening to the debate—if anyone is at this time of night—would agree that if a deadline is appropriate and the intention is to accelerate the required action, it is sensible for the deadline to be

      629
      shorter. If the deadline is made longer, and in so far as it will influence the time within which the process is completed, the time taken to complete the process is likely to be extended. That is the simple argument that we put when we debated amendment No. 1.
      David Burnside: During the past, confused, 10 minutes, the English Front Bench might have been confused with the Scottish Front Bench.
      Is the reason there is so much confusion in the debate on deadlines that neither the Government nor the Opposition have defined what sanction they would use to impose pressure to meet the deadline? What sanction do the Opposition recommend against Sinn Fein in government, if there is no progress on decommissioning during the next six months?
      Mr. Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I shall come on to deal with sanctions or counterweights.
      I want to take up with the Secretary of State a third matter in which there is an element of muddled thinking. The right hon. Gentleman twice told the House rhetorically—he may not have expected an answer but he is about to get one—that if the deadline of summer 2000 for the completion of decommissioning under the Belfast agreement had been taken seriously, there would have been no decommissioning in November and the peace process would have come to an end. That is known as the all-things-being equal fallacy. It has a Latin name but we will not go into that.
      That is a simple but important practical fallacy to fall prey to, because of course other things would not have been equal. We made it absolutely clear that, after the signing of the Belfast agreement—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Conservative party has been consistent in its support of that—we wanted to make sure that prisoners were not released until and unless there was progress on decommissioning. We would have linked the two and used that element of leverage—to refer to the question put by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). We would certainly have used those sanctions.
      The right hon. Gentleman was not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time, so it was not his fault that his predecessors threw away that card—that instrument of leverage. We were appalled by that. My predecessor proposed an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill which, like all amendments proposed to the Government, was discarded without its merits having been properly considered. Had it not been for the events in Colombia in August and in New York in September, there would probably have been no act of decommissioning.
      The Government have persuaded themselves that although—on their own admission—the act of decommissioning was a result of those other unpredictable events, it none the less retrospectively validates the tactics that they adopted during the first two years of the Belfast agreement. However, they should actually draw the reverse conclusion: were it not for those fortuitous events—albeit utterly regrettable and tragic in the case of 11 September—they would not have achieved decommissioning yet. As sanctions or counterweights were absent from the Government's approach to
      630
      decommissioning, they had no chance of using those tactics to ensure that the Belfast agreement was implemented.
      That classic example of muddled thinking does not apply only to the right hon. Gentleman. As I pointed out, it was shared by his colleagues and predecessors. In practice, muddled thinking has led to a disastrous and regrettable result. It was tragic for the right hon. Gentleman to admit that the Sinn Fein-IRA decommissioning in November was largely brought about by factors beyond the Government's control; tragic, too, that he should regard that act of decommissioning as validating the Government's policies in the first two years of the Belfast agreement. That really is muddled thinking. We cannot afford muddled thinking. The stakes are far too high.
      I wholly agree that, even at this 11th hour, we need to introduce a greater element of sanction, discipline and counterweight. This is not the time to go into the detail of that. However, the Minister of State challenged me to offer an alternative policy. She seemed rather surprised when I answered her question. Perhaps she was surprised because she was not expecting an answer. Perhaps she was surprised because the substance of my answer was new to her, but that shows that she does not listen to what the Opposition say.
      Two or three times in the brief time I have played this role, I have said that it is necessary now, even at the eleventh hour, to try to negotiate a global package. I have called it a programmed process, leading to full decommissioning. Of course, it would involve the loyalist paramilitaries, Sinn Fein-IRA and the two Governments. It might also involve making some concessions that might need to be made, however unattractive, but no such concession should be made in advance of such a global agreement. I have said that several times in the House.
      The hon. Lady has another bad habit common among those on the Labour Front Bench—she does not listen any more to what is said in the House. She has been sitting on the Treasury Bench when I have said such things several times, but she simply thinks, "Those guys have only got 165 MPs. We need not worry about them; they have no pressure in the Division Lobbies, so we can ignore them." It is a little like Stalin saying, "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
      Neither the hon. Lady nor the Secretary of State thinks that way as a result of some personal temperamental predilection; they are not that sort of people. It is part of new Labour's culture—its arrogance of power and its knowledge that it can always override us in the Lobbies. Although Ministers may not treat us with contempt, they think that we can safely be ignored with impunity. So the hon. Lady did not know that I had already answered the question. She asked me a question rhetorically, and was rather surprised to get an answer.
      I have limited myself—I do not wish to be more controversial than I have to be—to remarks that were directly called for by the Secretary of State's speech at the beginning of this debate on Third Reading, but I do not want to end on an antagonistic note. I am conscious, as he is, that we have had some extremely bad news from Belfast this evening. I did not know until he told us that policemen and women had been injured in north Belfast, but clearly there has been a serious riot

      631
      The only conclusion that we should draw is that we are sitting on a powder keg. We cannot afford any kind of complacency or any mistakes. We certainly cannot afford to lull ourselves into supposing that because an act of decommissioning, however extensive or otherwise it might be, took place in November, everything is fine and dandy and on the right rails. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have never said or implied that, but I am concerned by people outside the House who seem to think that the worst is over and that everything will now be plain sailing. Clearly, that is not the case.
      When such a crisis occurs, it is a good moment to reappraise the strategy. I know perfectly well that the Government will not explicitly accept any advice from us. Anything that I say will be dismissed because it is said by someone who sits on the Opposition Front Bench. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government may reappraise some of their strategy. I hope that they will accept that the general perception, even if it is not their perception, on both sides in Northern Ireland is that they are on the run. They are giving away endless concessions, and there is no rigour in the process whatever. Clearly, Sinn Fein-IRA have reached that conclusion; they simply ask for the next concession and expect that, if they ask for three things, they will get at least one and probably two of them. That has been the basis of that dialogue.
      Equally, on the other side of the divide, as has been said by representatives of both Unionist parties here tonight, there is an enormous sense of demoralisation and cynicism in the Unionist camp, which feels that the whole process is a one-way street and that the Government simply have no natural stopping place, so the process of endless concessions will go on and on. Of course, those two things are directly linked to decommissioning, as I have said already during today's proceedings.
      The Minister of State said today—it was the most despairing thing to come out of the debate—that the process may now take years. If that is true—and it may well be—it is clear that Sinn Fein-IRA expect to be able to buy an endless raft of concessions from the Government, by promising at least not to withdraw the prospect of an act of decommissioning and by saying that perhaps something will happen next month or in a few months' time. In fact, Sinn Fein-IRA have so effectively turned the tables on the Government that, as I have already argued, far from the Government putting pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, Sinn-Fein-IRA now have no incentive to speed up the process of decommissioning. They have every incentive to hold on to their currency and to let it go as slowly as possible. That is most unfortunate.
      The Secretary of State began his speech by referring to the Holy Cross school. It is a tragic situation and it is particularly tragic that, after the hopeful news that we had before Christmas, we are once again facing violence. It is obviously too early to apportion blame, to decide who started the trouble and to determine the circumstances in which it began.
      I believe, however, that the whole House will agree when I say that anyone who starts violence or makes the decision to resort to violence puts him or herself fundamentally in the wrong. Whatever the grievances, problems or disputes, anyone who resorts to violence takes a terrible responsibility on his or her shoulders.
      632
      I hope that no one will suggest that the siege of the school should now resume, because anyone who targets children in a political dispute puts themselves beyond the pale.
      The tragic deterioration of the situation in north Belfast underlines, once again, the need to get the decommissioning process back on the rails. Of course, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say—in the context of north Belfast, it is a particularly pertinent point—that progress in decommissioning must be made by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries. Let me quote the figures to the House to remind everyone of what happened last year. I understand—the Government will tell me if the figures are wrong—that Protestant paramilitaries are believed to have been responsible for 14 murders and that republican paramilitaries are believed to have been responsible for two murders in the Province.
      One murder is far too many, but it is clear that, in terms of murders—I leave out the important issue of permanent maimings and the appalling beatings and shootings that take place—Protestant paramilitaries have been most bloodthirsty recently. I certainly do not underestimate the threat from them or the absolute need to treat them with the same kind of discipline and rigour as I want us to use on all paramilitaries and anyone who breaks the law in our country.
      This has been an interesting debate. We have covered a lot of ground, and rightly so. Because decommissioning is at the centre of the whole peace process, we have brought in almost every other major aspect of the issue. Even if the Government do not want ever to say this in public, I hope that they will listen to what is said by Opposition Members and, if it is possible to even a minor degree, that they will consider some of the things that have been said in the debate. They might even think again about the reporting requirements of the international commission when we renew its mandate as I fear, if the Minister of State is right, we shall have to do next year.
      I hope that the Government will accept the need to adopt a slightly more determined line as regards the way in which they deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. If the statements that I and others have made tonight make it easier for the Secretary of State to tell Sinn Fein-IRA that he is under considerable pressure in the House not to give them any further unreciprocated concessions, our debates will not have been in vain.
      9.29 pm
      Lembit ÖOpik: We now have only half an hour left of the debate. I know that the Minister of State wants a couple of minutes to reply and that at least two Members on the Benches behind me want to speak. I shall therefore try to keep my comments brief, not least because the key points have been made, and made a number of times by some individuals.
      If the debate is about anything, it is about trying to stop the violence that is going on outside Holy Cross school. We have to focus on the outcome. This is not an esoteric debate about principle; it is about life in Northern Ireland and what is best to normalise its community. If the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen were in the IRA, would they be more or less likely to decommission if the British Government played hardball, despite the fact that decommissioning started in the context of an amnesty? It is obvious that in the world of human nature and practical judgment the hardball playing that the Conservatives propose would be wholly counterproductive.

      633
      Furthermore, we have established that the proposal is not a matter of principle for the Conservatives, but a matter of practicality. Let us consider that in detail. They are not concerned about the principle of the amnesty because they introduced that idea five years ago when they were in government. They are not even concerned about the principle of extending the time because their amendments would have extended it to 2003 or 2005, which in the latter case means that we are arguing about two years' difference. That is a matter of judgment.
      I am confused about what logical argument convinces the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that what was right in much more dangerous circumstances in 1997 is no longer right, even though the Conservatives accept that the policy was successful in moving things forward. When I asked the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading whether he accepted that it was a greater act of faith to have acted in that way back then, he said:
      "Yes, that is true. That took place right at the beginning of the peace process launched by the Conservative Government and it required a considerable act of faith."
      What has changed? What logical justification is there for the Conservatives to shy away from a lesser act of faith than the one that they took back then? Despite the hon. Gentleman's intellectual formidableness, I am sorry to say that I was not convinced that his point was consistent.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that longer deadlines do not create shorter implementation periods. I would go further and suggest that plenty of evidence shows that shorter deadlines create a longer implementation period. When this Government have called the bluff of terrorists and others, the terrorists have simply said, "Forget it. We are not going to do it that way."
      In addition, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in an earlier and happier time the former Prime Minister John Major was willing to be much more sensitive to the genuine need to bring such people to the negotiating table without threatening them with a stick. Why else would he have phoned terrorists, who were not even on a ceasefire, to begin to move things forward? Why else did the former Conservative Government take the risk of an amnesty when there was not even such a thing as the Good Friday agreement? There is a strong inconsistency in what we heard from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.
      In the same debate, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that I
      "must understand that in 1997 the Government were setting up a mechanism to test the genuineness of terrorists' intentions to give up violence."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 107.]
      That test was so successful that it actually delivered some decommissioning four years later. What was the logic for having a five-year amnesty instead of a two or a 10-year amnesty? It was an arbitrary call. I challenge the Conservatives to think seriously about that if they expect us to take seriously the argument that they have some insight into the future and into the mind of a terrorist and that changing the amnesty period from five years to one, which is the most extreme change that they propose, would be acceptable.
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) summed up the matter for me. He said that he could create a deadline of his own, and I think he is right. Of all the people in the Chamber, he is in the strongest position to
      634
      cause movement on that, but how can he if decommissioning is a criminal offence and someone who walks in with guns and bombs is prosecuted? How will he do that without an amnesty? It does not add up.
      The deadlines threaten a period after which there will be a greater barrier to decommissioning. The deadlines are based on the assumption that after a certain date something will happen that will make decommissioning more likely, or people will be so frightened of that date that they will decommission beforehand. However, all the evidence suggests otherwise.
      How do we know whether decommissioning is even worth while? How important is the quantity of weapons that have been handed in so far? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was right to say that any meaningful statistic must be expressed in terms of proportion. In reality, we have no way of being sure how much decommissioning has taken place. That extends beyond the IRA to the other organisations. Why do we not trust John de Chastelain, a man who has generally been praised by all sides in the House, when he provides what he believes to be a strategic and useful contribution on the question of significance?
      I have said before and I say again that I would take the Conservatives' argument much more seriously if they specified the proportion that they would find acceptable. I fear that whatever proportion was offered, it would not be enough. The only reference that I have heard from them in the past was to total decommissioning, yet that is not a realistic expectation, even in their eyes. They wanted to extend the period so that there would be an on-going process of decommissioning.
      In conclusion, it seems clear to the Liberal Democrats that the deadlines are not about increasing the pressure; all the experience of the Northern Ireland peace process tells us that—they are about removing the barrier that I mentioned. If I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I would leave the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford with this question: if we look past 27 February 2002, and if he had his way, which is presumably to vote down the Bill tonight, what would he do the following day? How would he push the process forward? If the hon. Gentleman has no plan B, I strongly recommend that he think about supporting plan A, which is before us tonight, as the Liberal Democrats intend to do.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Lembit ÖOpik: With respect, the hon. Gentleman had an awfully long time earlier, and I must leave time for others to catch the Speaker's eye.
      I conclude with a request to Her Majesty's official Opposition. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill is about leaving the door open and keeping one barrier out of the way while other forms of pressure are applied for decommissioning to take place. The Conservatives seem to think that the harder line approach is appropriate. History will say who is right and who is wrong, but I sincerely hope that before Conservatives vote against the Bill tonight, they will remember that they asked for much greater acts of faith when they were in government. In fairness, they were rewarded for taking the risk. It would be a shame if they lost their resolve and their faith in the very strategies that they adopted.
      9.38 pm
      Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit ÖOpik) for his brevity. It is appreciated.
      The issue of decommissioning cannot be considered in isolation. One of the reasons why my party will vote against the Bill tonight is that we consider it inappropriate to extend the deadline as proposed. Like the official spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition, we believe that lengthening a deadline means lengthening the process of decommissioning and making the prospects of achieving further substantive decommissioning highly unlikely.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech only so that there can be no possible misunderstanding. I understand how, as a matter of principle, he and his party may vote against the Bill for all the reasons that we set out today. However, I should make it clear that I have no intention of asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as it would be perverse to have no framework for decommissioning. Much as we would have preferred one with a one-year deadline, we would rather have some framework in place than none whatever.
      Mr. Donaldson: The decommissioning issue was part of the agreement and part of a package. I took part in the talks at Weston Park last summer. We are now seeing the product of what the Government decided to proceed with after Weston Park. I want to make it clear, as a participant in those talks, that there was no agreement at Weston Park between the parties and the Government. However, the Government have decided to proceed with a number of measures. Extending the deadline for decommissioning is undoubtedly one of them, but there is another very important measure.
      We have talked a lot about amnesty in these debates tonight. Another amnesty is being proposed as a result of the Government's initiative after Weston Park that it is important that the House appreciate, as it is the price that is being paid by the Government in return for some progress on decommissioning. It is the amnesty to be granted to those terrorists who are on the run and wanted for questioning by the security forces in Northern Ireland about serious terrorist offences, or who are fugitives from justice, having escaped from prison. Who are those people? Perhaps the House ought to know who some of them are.
      A person such as Dermot McNally, who escaped with 38 other IRA prisoners from the Maze prison in 1983, is to be granted amnesty. A person such as Robert "Fats" Campbell, a member of the M60 gang that escaped from the Crumlin Road jail in 1981 having been sentenced to life, in his absence, for the murder of SAS Captain Westmacot, is to be granted amnesty. Liam Avril, who escaped from the Maze prison dressed as a woman during a Christmas party for prisoners and had been sentenced to life in prison for the IRA murders of two innocent Protestants in Garvagh in 1996, is to be granted amnesty.
      Owen Carron, the former Sinn Fein-IRA Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who gained his seat following the death of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands was caught in possession of an AK47 rifle in the late 1980s, was granted bail, skipped bail and went on the run in the Irish Republic is now to be granted
      636
      amnesty. Rita O'Hare, part of the Sinn Fein talks team that went to America in the mid 1990s, is wanted for questioning about IRA attacks in west Belfast and is now to be granted amnesty.
      Michael Dixon, former British soldier and member of the IRA, is wanted for questioning about an attack on the British Army base in Germany and for the bomb attack on Thiepval barracks in Lisburn in my constituency, in which one soldier died in 1996, and is to be granted amnesty. Charlie Caufield, wanted for questioning about the explosion in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday—the poppy day bombing—in which 11 innocent people were murdered, is to be granted amnesty; and so the list goes on. The other day I read in the Belfast News Letter that Dermot Finucane, the brother of Pat Finucane, has just been granted his freedom after 20 years on the run—granted amnesty.
      We come to another individual, Joseph Patrick Blair, known as "Mutch" Blair. Mr. Blair is an interesting character. He was the main IRA bomber operating in the south Armagh area for a number of years. He is a lifelong friend of Thomas "Slab" Murphy, who is also known as the current chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. Together, they have been involved in terrorism since the early 1970s.
      Blair was involved in the making of the mortars that were used in the attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary station in Newry in 1985 in which nine RUC officers were murdered, including, tragically, my cousin, Chief Inspector Alexander Donaldson. Blair was also involved in the murder of three police officers, who were gunned down in cold blood in the centre of Newry as they sat in a police car, by IRA gunmen dressed in butchers' clothing. I could go on.
      Blair was also involved in the death of Constable Colleen McMurray in a landmine explosion in south Armagh which resulted in injuries to Constable Paul Slane. I should tell those Members who do not know of Paul Slane, one of my constituents, that he was the police officer who received the George Cross from Her Majesty the Queen at Hillsborough. Blair was responsible for that bomb.
      I come to a more recent incident: the Omagh bombing. Blair is a member of the Provisional IRA and that bombing was carried out by the so-called Real IRA. The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent report by the police ombudsman on the police investigation of the Omagh bombing. In that report, there is mention of a police informer called Kevin Fulton. Fulton asserted that he met a senior republican in Dundalk a few days before the Omagh bombing. He further asserted that he smelt explosives on the person of that individual. I can tell the House that I am being informed by security sources that that individual was Joseph Patrick Blair, the IRA bomb maker. One therefore has to make the assumption that Blair, as a Provisional IRA member, was involved in the construction of the Omagh bomb.
      That is why decommissioning is so important. These weapons have been and still are being used in Northern Ireland. I join those who have condemned the violence today in north Belfast. We all condemn it. Tonight, on the

      637
      streets of north Belfast, weaponry is again being used. That is why decommissioning is essential. However, what is the message that is coming from this House tonight to people such as Joseph Patrick Blair, a member of the Provisional IRA who used his Semtex from the IRA arms dumps to give the Real IRA the capacity to explode the Omagh bomb that killed 28 innocent people? That is why decommissioning is so important.
      I want to conclude with the words of Victor Barker, the father of James Barker, a young boy who lost his life in the Omagh bombing. Recently, Victor Barker, out of sheer frustration with some of the things that are happening, sent to the Prime Minister coroner's photographs of his dead son. Why would someone like Victor Barker have to do something like that? I shall explain why. He said:
      "I have written to the Prime Minister about what I regard as the scandal of giving Sinn Fein offices and funds from the British Parliament. Whilst seeking to have that facility, these people specifically refuse to encourage any of their supporters to give information concerning those responsible for the Omagh bomb. The people who did that are their former colleagues and to pretend that they have no association with them is absolute nonsense."
      That is why Victor Barker sent those photographs—to remind the Prime Minister. The association to which he refers is there in the person of Joseph Patrick Blair, a man who is a member of the Provisional IRA and who helped to construct the Omagh bomb.
      I conclude by saying that that is why decommissioning is essential and must happen now. It should have happened and would have been completed by now if the agreement had been followed, but like the extension of the deadline and the amnesty that has been granted to IRA terrorists on the run, it seems that certain aspects of the agreement are flexible and can be changed as we go along. The problem is this: the IRA and the other terrorist organisations know that. They know that they have only to hold out and they will be let off the hook. We must not let them off the hook, for the sake of people such as Victor Barker, the families of the people who lost their lives in the poppy day bomb in Enniskillen and all the innocent victims on both sides in Northern Ireland. If we are to build a real and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, we owe it to them to ensure that the gun and bomb are removed from our politics. I am afraid that by taking the actions that we are taking tonight, we postpone the day when that will happen.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I thank him and the previous. speaker, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit ÖOpik), for their brevity and for allowing some time for others to contribute.
      The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made a plea at the end of his speech for the Government to listen to at least some of the points made by Opposition Members. I must say that I doubt whether the Government will respond to that plea, given that they are not prepared on many occasions to listen to the views of the people of Northern Ireland or, as has been demonstrated, to those of the majority of the Unionist population. On this issue and many others relating to the Belfast agreement, they have steadfastly turned their face against the democratically expressed wishes of the
      638
      majority of the Unionist population, even though we were told that this process was based on having the consent of both communities, nationalist and Unionist.
      We are debating deadlines tonight, and one of the problems that we have with deadlines in Northern Ireland is that they have been patently and blatantly ignored and cast aside. We were told by the Government and by the pro-agreement leaders and parties in Northern Ireland that May 2000 was the deadline not for the start of decommissioning but for its completion—the handing over and destruction of all illegal terrorist weapons, particularly by those who had a part in the government of Northern Ireland.
      Let me say categorically that we want to see both loyalist decommissioning and republican decommissioning. The reason why there is so much focus on republican decommissioning is that although republicans still hold on to virtually all their weaponry, have their total terrorist machine intact, and still target, intimidate and maim people on the streets, they are still part of the government of Northern Ireland. That is what the people in Northern Ireland find so unacceptable.
      We have seen the decommissioning deadline cast aside in May 2000 and again in May 2001, and if the House votes that way tonight, we are about to cast another deadline aside. Yet at the same time, a series of measures have been delivered to the republican movement according to a strict timetable—the release of all terrorist prisoners, for example. We have also seen the dismantling of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a series of other concessions, one of which—the introduction of an amnesty for terrorists on the run—was highlighted by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, who powerfully described the sort of people to whom that amnesty will apply.
      In contrast to the way in which the so-called decommissioning event was carried out, we have seen the open and transparent dismantling and pulling down of security installations along the border, in total opposition to the wishes of many people living there, who feel that their security has been denuded and reduced.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit ÖOpik) asked why we could not trust General de Chastelain. One of the reasons why it is difficult to proceed on the basis of the event that General de Chastelain told us had happened is that we saw a previous event of decommissioning, carried out by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, as part of the process. That was done quite openly, and I dare say that the weapons destroyed amounted to a greater proportion of its total weaponry than the proportion involved in the IRA's event. Yet where does the LVF stand now? Its ceasefire has been declared to be over. Why was that event not considered significant in the long run, as something that could be built on? It was because it was a one-off event, and not part of a timetabled sequence or programme leading to complete and verifiable decommissioning.
      Yet nothing that we have heard thus far in relation to the IRA's so-called act of decommissioning gives that impression, and nowhere have we been told that there is any programme or timetable that would lead to the total and verifiable destruction of all IRA weaponry—which we, the people of Northern Ireland, were told would have happened by May 2000.

      639
      One of the reasons why people are so disillusioned, angry and frustrated in Northern Ireland tonight is the series of concessions that have been granted. How else can we describe the release of all terrorist prisoners, the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the granting of amnesties to terrorists on the run? While that series of concessions takes place, in this House tonight we are to have the Third Reading of a Bill that will allow the IRA off the hook on decommissioning again.
      Finally, I want to mention the events in north Belfast. In my constituency, we have seen in recent months a series of troubles in various interface areas. It is fair to say that people in north Belfast do not recognise any sort of peace process. They see paramilitary organisations holding sway on the streets in many areas. They see men of violence who previously used guns continuing to hold sway, and holding on to and using those weapons. All hon. Members will deplore and be dismayed by the upsurge of violence on the Ardoyne road today. I am dismayed that there seems to have been a major setback after all the hard work that went into trying to make progress.
      I call on everyone in north Belfast to exercise calm and restraint, and not to engage in violence. It is clear that some people are prepared, for propaganda and political purposes, to undo some of the hard work that has been done, and are not content to see progress being made. But we need to be careful with the language that is being used in relation to the Holy Cross dispute. The events that were taking place as of 20 minutes ago were happening away from the Holy Cross school altogether, in the republican Ardoyne area. That is where the rioting is going on, so let us be careful that we do not fall into the trap of saying that everything is to do with the Holy Cross school. It is not.
      We need to ensure that the measures that were agreed as part of a package to try to make progress are implemented speedily and seen to be delivered on the ground. Not least, we need to ensure that the right signal is sent out to people in north Belfast and across Northern Ireland that security will be provided to the ordinary decent residents. The proposals for the removal of two police stations in north Belfast are opposed by everyone in the community. They are opposed by the SDLP as well as by the Unionist parties, and by the clergy, community workers and others. I urge the Minister to make representations to ensure that those police stations are kept open, particularly in the light of today's events and of recent times.
      The Bill will send out the wrong signal to the paramilitaries and to those engaged in violence. It will encourage them in their belief that violence pays and that violence works, and I trust that the House will vote against it tonight.
      9.57 pm
      Jane Kennedy: Our debates on Second Reading and today have given us the opportunity to use the vehicle of a very short Bill to discuss some serious issues. They have been a useful two days and I am grateful to everyone who has participated.
      640
      The Bill does one thing only. It extends by one year the period during which a decommissioning scheme may provide an amnesty for those decommissioning weapons. It provides for the possibility of further extensions, subject to parliamentary approval. I will not use words such as "credible", "significant" or "important", but we have seen a start to decommissioning. I do not think that anyone expects all paramilitary organisations to have completed decommissioning by 28 February.
      May I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that, although he and his hon. Friends cannot agree with the Bill in its entirety, I am grateful to hear that he has committed his party at least not to vote against it? The Bill will provide the continuing framework for further decommissioning, and it is right that we should expect that to happen. The event that happened on 23 October was an historic move forward, but it would not have been possible had not the scheme designed by his hon. Friends in the last Conservative Government, and the regulations, provided an amnesty for those decommissioning weapons.
      If we are to fulfil the promise of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, it is essential that we continue to provide the means by which weapons may be put beyond use. The mandate of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning—the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms—comes from the Good Friday agreement, and the pursuit of that objective must continue. The Bill is critical to that, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 6.

      Division No. 126]

      9.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Alexander, Douglas

      (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

      Allan, Richard

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Allen, Graham

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Bryant, Chris

      (Swansea E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Burden, Richard

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bumham, Andy

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cairns, David

      Austin, John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Bailey, Adrian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bames, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barrett, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Barron Kevin

      (NE Fife)

      Battle John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Casale, Roger

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Caton, Martin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cawsey, Ian

      Benn, Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Bennett, Andrew

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benton, Joe

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Chidgey, David

      Best, Harold

      Clapham, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clwyd, Ann

      Brennan, Kevin

      Coaker, Vemon

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      641

      Cohen, Harry

      Holmes, Paul

      Coleman, Iain

      Hood, Jimmy

      Colman, Tony

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Connarty, Michael

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corston, Jean

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Doran, Frank

      Joyce, Eric

      Doughty, Sue

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Follett, Barbara

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Laxton, Bob

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Gardiner, Barry

      Leslie, Christopher

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Levitt, Tom

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gidley, Sandra

      Linton, Martin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lloyd, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Goggins, Paul

      Love, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Lucas, Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Luke, lain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lyons, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Grogan, John

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacDougall, John

      Hancock, Mike

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Harvey, Nick

      McKechin, Ann

      Havard, Dai

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heath, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McNutty, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWalter, Tony

      Heppell, John

      McWilliam, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heyes, David

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hill, Keith

      Mann, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marris, Rob

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      642

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simon, Siôn

      Martlew, Eric

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Meale, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soley, Clive

      Moore, Michael

      Southworth, Helen

      Moran, Margaret

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Morgan, Julie

      Squire, Rachel

      Morley, Elliot

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Norris, Dan

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Hara, Edward

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Tami, Mark

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Owen, Albert

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Thurso, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Perham, Linda

      Todd, Mark

      Picking, Anne

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhig, Don

      Pike, Peter

      Trickett, Jon

      Plaskitt, James

      Truswell, Paul

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tyler, Paul

      Price, Adam

      Tynan, Bill

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pumell, James

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rammell, Bill

      Watson, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Weir, Michael

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      White, Brian

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Whitehead, DrAlan

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Wilson, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ross, Ernie

      Wood, Mike

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruane, Chris

      Wray, James

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Nick Ainger and Mr. Phil Woolas.

      Shaw, Jonathan

      643

      NOES

      Bumside, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Hermon, Lady

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Mr. Roy Beggs and Mr. Nigel Dodds

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Ordered,
      That the Care Home Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3965), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      That the Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3968), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      That the National Care Standards Commission (Registration) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3969), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      That the National Care Standards Commission (Fees and Frequency of Inspections) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3980), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      That the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3853), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

      SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
      Motion made
      That, following the Order of 20th November 2000, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Edward O'Hara be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITIONS

    Foot and Mouth Disease
    10.13 pm
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: It gives me great pleasure to present the petition from the people of Herefordshire, particularly as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease caused extensive damage, hardship and disruption to the farming and rural community, to the tourist industry and to other business throughout the United Kingdom, with consequent economic loss to those directly and indirectly affected and to the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is a particularly strong feeling in the countryside. The petition states:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons resolves 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 2000/2001, the adequacy of measures taken to investigate and to remedy the outbreak and with terms of reference no less than those provided by the three inquiries into the foot and mouth disease outbreak and the future of farming set up by the Government, and to make recommendations as for the prevention of any recurrence with respect to financial compensation and relief and the application of European rules relating thereto and for the future of agriculture and related interests and those of the rural and business community and the environment.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Sidford Bypass
    10.14 pm
    Mr. Hugo Swire: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 645 residents of Sidford in Devon, who oppose the sale for development of the land formerly earmarked for a bypass for Sidford.
    The petition states:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take appropriate action to prevent the sale and development of this land.
    And the Petitions remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table

    Acupuncture
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    10.15 pm
    Mr. David Tredinnick: I am delighted to see you, Mr. Speaker, in your place at this late hour to chair the debate. I am also delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), with whom I have debated before, in her place to respond to the important issue of the regulation of acupuncture, because there has been a seismic change in Government policy in the past few weeks. I shall explain why I think that that is the case in a few moments.
    In the past year or so, much has been going on in complementary and alternative medicine, not least the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's report on complementary and alternative medicine, most of which the Government accepted. As a result, the Government have now got themselves a new committee to help take forward the process of statutory self-regulation for two key and related parts of the complementary and alternative process: acupuncture and herbal medicine. Although herbal medicine is slightly ahead of acupuncture, we must treat them as a whole tonight; we cannot divorce one from the other.
    I believe that statutory self-regulation is so important and the way forward because, two Parliaments ago, I sat on the Standing Committees for both the Osteopaths Bill and the Chiropractors Bill and saw them enacted. I know what a difference it has made to have statutory regulations for osteopathy and chiropractic. Having been treasurer of the parliamentary group for complementary and alternative medicine since 1987, I know how crucial it is that we build confidence among not just patients seeking treatment but qualified medical practitioners to refer cases to other disciplines, such as acupuncture and herbal medicine.
    The story so far is that both acupuncture and herbal medicine practitioners are in favour of such moves and are making significant progress. Herbal medicine and acupuncture are inextricably linked. In traditional Chinese medicine, the prescription of herbs and the use of acupuncture—inserting needles to regulate the flow of "chi", or energy—are intertwined, although in the west, herbal medicine does not necessarily involve the use of acupuncture.
    Herbal medicine practitioners, with whom I shall deal first, have just completed a scoping document with the Department, which sets an ambitious and demanding route to statutory self-regulation for the herbal profession. The Department is to be congratulated—I have not used that word often—on setting up a regulatory working group for herbal medicine. It is significant and important that the Government have had the foresight to make it clear that that group will have the capacity to assess the needs of other disciplines, such as aromatherapy, for statutory self-regulation.
    It is also helpful that Professor Michael Pittilo has been appointed to take over the detailed work of preparing herbal medicine for statutory self-regulation. I applaud the bringing in of representatives of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine and other lay advisers, because one
    646
    of the criticisms that the parliamentary group has always had of the Department is that it has never had on board enough people who understand the issues. That is a step in the right direction. I am pleased by that positive response, but I must tell the Minister that the Conservative manifesto at the election said that complementary and alternative medicine should be made much more available in the health service. The pressure that has been applied to the Government from those on the Conservative Benches over the years has probably had some effect. I do not want the Minister to raise her eyebrows too much, because we have had a good relationship in discussions in the past, but I want to make that one political point.
    I was astonished to read over my cornflakes before Christmas that the Government have now apparently embraced complementary and alternative medicine, and integrated health care generally, so dramatically. The reports said:
    "Herbal drugs may become routine NHS treatment",
    "Ministers call for herbal cures on NHS" and
    "Hopes for herb cures on the NHS".
    It was also claimed that yoga may become a treatment on the NHS and that the Secretary of State wants to set up contracts with licensed alternative therapists. That is a dramatic change. Normally the Government like to bury the bad news in the busy weeks, but this time they have slipped out some good news. It may have gone unnoticed, but it has the potential to make a significant shift in the way in which patients are treated by the health service.
    If the Minister and her colleagues will really embrace the 50,000 complementary practitioners, waiting lists will fall. One point that emerges strongly from the submissions made by complementary practitioners, especially acupuncturists, is that they believe that they achieve a 30 per cent. improvement rate when treating patients. Other benefits would include reductions in drugs bills.
    Acupuncture is so important because it can treat many different afflictions that it is sometimes difficult to treat within the health service, possibly because of lack of resources and overstretched doctors and sometimes because other treatments are not successful. Acupuncture has been successfully used in drug addiction, treatment of pain, musculoskeletal problems and asthma.
    The Minister may not be aware of the following three examples. A team at Derriford hospital in Devon, headed by Sarah Budd, who recently won an integrated health care award, provides a maternity acupuncture service. The hospital has about 4,500 births a year and the service offers a choice of pain relief for women in labour. Because it was such a success, it was expanded to a popular in-patient and out-patient service for antenatal and post-natal problems. Nearer to my Leicestershire constituency, the Kingsmill hospital in Sutton in Ashfield, which is in Nottinghamshire, has been treating eight pregnant ladies for back pain, and that also has been very successful. Those projects should be encouraged, as should the project at the Claydon health centre in Manchester, which uses acupuncture alongside hypnotherapy in smoking cessation treatment. I have given up smoking and I know how hard it is. The Government have a project to reduce smoking—I have raised the issue twice at recent Question Times—and the Minister should consider incorporating acupuncture in that plan

    647
    The British Academy of Western Acupuncture gave me a list of the different afflictions that acupuncture can treat, and they include migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, asthma, bronchitis, menopausal problems, digestive problems, hiatus hernia, colitis, nausea, vomiting, recurrent cystitis, bed-wetting, eczema, psoriasis, hay fever, sinusitis and anxiety. Just about every treatment can be treated using acupuncture.
    The herbalists are likely to achieve self-regulation first, followed by the acupuncturists, but the Minister must focus on the issue of managing two registers. Broadly speaking, it has been agreed in the Department that herbal medicine—a category that includes western herbal medicine, the Indian Ayurveda discipline and the traditional Chinese herbalism—should all be regulated as one group. The three different disciplines would be treated in a sort of federal way, with one system of regulation.
    Acupuncture should be treated separately. That is my view: some people disagree, but the Minister should not be blown off course. She must stick with the two registers, one for herbalists and one for acupuncturists. The experts in this country who have been taking the matter forward have produced a scheme that has required a lot of careful negotiation.
    However, we must find a mechanism to ensure that those who practise both disciplines do not have to pay two registration fees. That was a problem for osteopaths and chiropractors, who found the combined fee for the two registers to which they belonged of more than £1,000 to be prohibitive.
    Secondly, the acupuncturists' register must be all-inclusive and embrace all the different bodies. In particular, it must cover the British Medical Acupuncture Society, the Acupuncture Association of Chartered Physiotherapists and the British Acupuncture Council. Each of those bodies has some 2,000 members, but the other, smaller groups are no less important.
    Regulation is important because it builds confidence. It gives patients the confidence to go to these practitioners, and it makes it much more likely that doctors will be prepared to refer patients to complementary practitioners. I hope that that will make possible a dramatic increase in the numbers of people treated on the NHS. I think that acupuncture should be available, free at the point of delivery, at most GPs' surgeries and most NHS hospitals. That should be the objective.
    Regulatory bodies have to be financed. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government would be prepared to produce some of the funding for the registers for acupuncturists and for herbalists. That matter needs to be resolved at an early stage.
    I shall not say too much more, as I want the Minister to have a proper chance to answer the debate. It is always unfortunate when Ministers get squeezed for time at the end of Adjournment debates, so I shall give her the best part of a quarter of an hour to reply. However, research is a key issue. People ask where the research on acupuncture can be found, as they do not know enough about it, but the answer is that a lot of research has been done.
    We sometimes forget that the People's Republic of China, the origin of Chinese medicine and acupuncture, has a population of 1.273 billion people. The country has
    648
    67,000 hospitals, and the anecdotal evidence gathered over the 2,000 years for which acupuncture has been used is overwhelming. There must be studies in Chinese that could be translated into English. Instead of initiating new studies, I believe that we should get our embassy in China to translate some existing surveys. That would engender confidence in this country, and help to take acupuncture forward.
    Finally, some other organisations have raised some points to which I should like to refer. The European Federation of Modern Acupuncture has argued that there should be a complete audit of how acupuncture is used in the private sector, to determine how best to use it in the public sector. It also suggested that the more controversial acupuncture treatments—such as the Voll technique, which tries to identify health dysfunction by the reaction to needles—should be thoroughly analysed. I support that.
    The Modern Acupuncture Association has stated that its practitioners can improve the health of at least 30 per cent. of people referred to them. It added:
    "In chronic diseases, acupuncture may reduce the need for drugs in 30 per cent. of patients involving acute conditions such as sciatic, headaches, glandular disfunctions".
    Another key point concerns the costs that can be saved, as the needles are extremely inexpensive when compared to some vastly expensive drugs. That is why in the past the drugs industry has, generally speaking, taken a disparaging view of complementary medicine and pooh-poohed it. Fortunately, that situation has changed.
    The British Academy of Western Acupuncture has written to say that the tendency in the national health service is to refer a patient to the acupuncturist when all else has failed. Mr. George Nieman, the principal, writes:
    "I can assure you that the results are very favourable but there is little doubt that if the patients were referred to the acupuncturists first, a better result could be achieved."
    He also talks about expenditure and points out that under current arrangements, treatments are frequently rationed to six only, whereas an acupuncturist needs about 10 treatments to make an impact. Perhaps the Minister will address that point.
    The British Acupuncture Council argues that doctors should at least be able to meet World Health Organisation standards of acupuncture education. That should be the minimum requirement. I think that the time has gone for doctors merely to say, "It probably won't do you any harm." Doctors have to know how homeopathy works and about the principles of herbal medicine, the pulses and chi in Chinese medicine. It is no good telling patients that such treatments will probably do them no harm.
    I have initiated this debate because I think that it is crucial to have statutory self-regulation to improve the way in which acupuncture is delivered in this country. I also think that, at a time when the Secretary of State for Health is sending patients abroad for treatment, it is crucial to make better use of the roughly 10,000 acupuncturists who are available to work in the health service.
    I shall finish by paraphrasing passages from a lovely book called "The Watching Tree" by Adeline Yen Mah, a Chinese lady who was brought up in Shanghai and Hong Kong and came to live in the west. She went with her aunt, who had developed a lump in her breast, to see a Chinese physician in Shanghai. The doctor did not examine her at all but simply took her hand for 10 minutes

    649
    and studied it. Mrs. Yen Mah could see her aunt getting nervous. The practitioner said that he was well aware that her aunt had a lump. He continued:
    "When you are older, you will come to realise that everything in one's body depends on the flow of qi—
    or energy. He continued:
    "That flow is carried by blood and reflected in the twenty-eight types of pulses which I can differentiate. By her pulse, I can detect any type of illness she may be suffering from. In a way, you can say that her pulse is tapping out her diagnosis and transmitting it to me through my fingers."
    After the consultation, the aunt received herbs from what was described as a strange looking cabinet. Mrs. Yen Mah said:
    "We left the doctor's office without him examining any part of Aunt Baba but her wrist."
    The aunt took the medicine. The author says:
    "We met again thirty-one years later. I asked Aunt Baba about her breast mass. She told me it had never gone away but had remained the same all those years."
    She lived to tell the tale. That wonderful system of medicine, about which we in the west do not have a great enough awareness as yet, saved that person's life.
    10.33 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising the regulation of acupuncture and its use in the NHS. I pay tribute to his unflagging enthusiasm for complementary and alternative therapies. He has raised them on a number of occasions and we have discussed them. Let me, however, sound a small note of caution at the outset. I would not like him to run away with the idea that complementary and alternative therapies are the answer to all our problems in the national health service, although they can clearly make a significant contribution.
    A number of therapies which not very many years ago would have been dismissed as fringe activities are beginning to be taken seriously by orthodox medicine. Osteopathy and chiropractic have joined the established health professions by gaining statutory recognition. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, herbal medicine and acupuncture are now making serious preparations to gain that ultimate recognition. Other therapies are beginning to strengthen their regulation—by bringing together a range of the diverse bodies involved to hold joint discussions—and that is much to be welcomed.
    Acupuncture has already attracted interest in the NHS. A BMA report on acupuncture, published in June 2000, identified a growing interest in acupuncture among GPs, and called for improvements and strengthening of its regulation. Acupuncture was one of the therapies included in the complementary medicine information pack that was sent to primary care groups in July 2000. The pack outlines a range of complementary therapies; it describes what is involved and sets out how primary care groups—and now primary care trusts—can begin to commission such services. It does not pretend to act as formal guidance, but highlights where complementary and alternative therapies can be useful.
    The fact that acupuncture can help in treating nausea, back pain, tooth pain, migraine and other forms of pain is well recognised. It was the subject of a complete review of the evidence base that was published last November.
    650
    There is a developing recognition of the evidence base for acupuncture. It is important to note, however, that the therapy cannot apply to the whole range of ailments. It is essential that we have a good, strong, well recognised evidence base for such therapies.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned smoking cessation. A review of the evidence revealed that in 21 trials acupuncture was no better than placebos in securing long-term abstinence from smoking. In fact, it was less successful than nicotine replacement therapy. We must be aware of the contribution that can be made by acupuncture, while also being rigorous about the process. It is through such rigour that there will be acceptance, and people will feel confident and safe in making referrals. We need a balanced consideration of the issues.
    Other sources have publicised the effective use of acupuncture. NHS Direct Online, in its new health encyclopaedia, includes advice on the use of acupuncture. It focuses mainly on types of pain relief, where it has been proven to be of most use.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the recent awards for good practice in integrated health care highlighted the work carried out in maternity provision at Derriford hospital. It has been suggested that the hospital might consider applying for beacon status, as a means of achieving wider dissemination and knowledge of the services provided in its maternity unit.
    Acupuncture is already used by many, many NHS professionals. It would certainly be desirable if more of them could provide acupuncture. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of doctor training and of ensuring that, through their curriculum and their education, doctors are made aware of the range of complementary therapies. The final draft of "Tomorrow's Doctors", currently being prepared by the professions, refers to the possibility of background instruction in complementary and alternative therapies for trainee doctors. That is an important step in ensuring that doctors are aware of the evidence base and the available therapies.
    Even with more qualified NHS staff, however, there will be a need to expand the range of professional acupuncturists—those who practise that therapy exclusively—and there should be more scope for NHS providers to engage their services. That is why a new, professional, regulator of acupuncture could help the NHS by advising on the training and competencies needed by NHS staff to carry out those services. As the profession grows, equality of access to acupuncture on the NHS will ease considerably. Access is not universal and it will increase as the profession becomes more established and acquires more publicity and greater standing through regulation.
    Acupuncture is generally considered relatively safe compared with other forms of treatment. However, in a few cases it has been known to have serious adverse effects, and its reliance on the insertion of needles clearly poses a risk to patients. Risk can be minimised by ensuring that acupuncture is administered to high standards of safety and competence by properly trained therapists. That requires effective regulation to define that competence and the necessary training standards, so that patients and the public can rely on the safety of the service.
    By comparison with some of the other therapies, acupuncture already has in place many of the features that provide effective regulation on a voluntary basis. Most of

    651
    those who practise acupuncture full time are regulated by the British Acupuncture Council—an organisation of some 2,200 members that was formed in 1995 by bringing together the membership of five disparate professional groups. The council was favourably mentioned in a House of Lords Select Committee report, not least because the council had formed an independent accreditation board for educational standards and was well on the way to setting up proper regulation.
    In this country, two different groups use acupuncture in different ways. One group consists mostly of professional acupuncturists, who are fully trained in the holistic Chinese approach. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the relationship between traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture. The other group consists of established conventional health professionals, who are already regulated on a statutory basis in connection with their majority employment. Whether they are nurses, physiotherapists or general practitioners, they use acupuncture in their more conventional practice. They may have had more limited training and may make more limited use of acupuncture than the professional acupuncturists who operate full time.
    It is very important that those two groups come together and collaborate. They have already carried out joint research, illustrated by articles published in the British Medical Journal in September last year, so the groups are considering such issues together. It is important that, when we begin to develop the regulation, damaging splits should not occur between the different forms of practice. Those groups have many issues in common, and they can come together to help to make the regulation effective, safe and of comfort to patients; and to ensure that the whole acupuncture profession can function properly in the future.
    Safety is clearly a key issue for the Government. That is why we want to try to appoint a single, authentic source of professional expertise to protect patients' interests. I am extremely pleased that members of the British Acupuncture Council have supported the case for strong self-regulation. At its recent annual general meeting, the ballot was overwhelmingly in favour of taking forward such steps.
    We want to ensure that we create the body with professional expertise, so that it can speak with authority on behalf of acupuncture as practised in the United Kingdom, and so that it can encourage competent practice. We also want to try to ensure that we embrace the whole range of approaches to acupuncture in taking that forward. We can build on the approach that has been taken in relation to herbal medicine by ensuring that we set up proper working groups to consider the issues, that those groups meet regularly and make recommendations, and that the Department of Health is involved.
    652
    The way in which herbal medicine has been taken forward—we are involving lay people—provides an important model to ensure that we have the widest possible agreement on such issues. A working group has been appointed to consider herbal medicine, and it is a little in advance of the one considering acupuncture at the moment, but I hope that both bodies can learn from their joint experience as they progress.
    The working group on herbal medicine will make recommendations which will form the basis for a subsequent order under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. Clearly, there will be a great deal of work to do before we reach that point, but it is important that this be a joint enterprise with the Government, so that we can embrace the recommendations from the consultation exercise properly in the necessary legislation to give the professions a proper statutory footing.
    It is important that the bodies play a major role in deciding how to make progress. This is not a matter for the Government to dictate; it is for the people involved in the service in the professions—the people who treat patients—to make their recommendations. I understand that there will be a meeting on 31 January when all the parties will get together. The Department of Health will be fully represented at that meeting, and we will begin to see dramatic progress.
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we already support a great deal of research in this area. There are two major research projects, and about £350,000 is being spent on research, but clearly more work remains to be done. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was involved in preparations for the regulation of osteopathy and chiropractic medicine, and I am sure that his contributions will continue to be extremely helpful in developing the statutory regulation of herbal medicines and acupuncture. I urge him to maintain his involvement and to ensure that he continues to contribute to that process as it develops. Indeed, I urge other hon. Members who are members of the all-party group who have an interest in such issues to ensure that they take part in the consultation that takes place.
    The hon. Gentleman asks about the Government's contribution to the cost of regulation. Clearly, regulation costs money. As professions become increasingly successful, the unit costs can be spread more widely and thus perhaps become more manageable. We will make a contribution in the form of the section 60 order, the preparations, and the consultation process. If there is a good, strong case for us to contribute to the profession's infrastructure, we shall certainly consider that in so far as we can.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Railways
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.— [Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Redwood: I went to my local railway station in Wokingham yesterday morning to prepare for this important debate today. I did so, yet again, more in hope than anything else, as I come from a part of the country where strikes are already badly affecting the service. I did not leave home as early as usual and arrived at the station car park at 9 o'clock. It was almost empty. I went through the usual routine of discovering that the car park ticket machine would not take my money. I had to go elsewhere to buy a ticket to make my car parking legal and I waited for a long time for a train that was delayed by nine minutes; one of the few services still running.
The station is a mess and needs reconstruction. There is no proper or secure parking, and it is difficult to get a bus in and out of the station. There is no proper transport interchange and, at the morning peaks—especially for an hour and a half after 7.40 am—there are only three trains to London from a place only 37 miles west of the capital. Many of us want to come to London, but when the trains are running, the services are crowded and difficult to get on.
If the Government were serious about wanting a better railway and transport system, Ministers would get on the trains and see what we all experience daily when we try to travel on the trains. They should start to spend the large amounts of money that they are talking about making available practically and positively to make a real difference.
I have proposed a plan for my local area that could be more widely used. The plan includes the improvement of traffic access to the station by a new link road to the main road; a mid-rise car park with security cameras and supervision; commercial development to help pay for the other property changes needed in the area; a bus interchange with bus services geared to the train times; and a new station. The current station does not have proper waiting facilities. One has to stand out in the rain, the cold and the wind that we often experience in winter. The plan would also include moving the station down the track, because it is too close to a principal road into the town. For safety reasons, the level crossing barriers must stay down much longer than would otherwise be needed. That increases the traffic jams in the town and makes it even more difficult to get to the station.
The Government say that they want an integrated transport policy. I am in favour of an integrated transport policy if that means simple things, such as being able to drive to a station, park, buy a ticket and get on a train in reasonable time. The Government seem to be fixated by how long it takes to carry out certain rail
204WH
journeys once a passenger is on a train. My constituents and I are interested in point-to-point journey time from the place we start from to the point at which we want to arrive. That is not usually from station to station. While the Government are claiming that they want to try to sort out the mess on the railways, they and many Labour and Liberal Democrat councils throughout the country are making it visibly more difficult for people to use the trains by impeding road access to stations and by failing to make the connections between the motorist and the train that are needed if train usage is to build up in the way that we would like.
The Government would be well advised to look at capacity on the tracks and the trains. The commuter railways are the most likely railways to be successful; the railways are—or could be—the best at moving a large number of people at approximately the same time on busy and otherwise congested routes. The Government should ask why there is so little capacity on commuter railway links into London and the other big cities throughout the country. There are both short and medium-term answers to the current capacity constraint. Building new track is likely to be problematic in all but the most obvious bottlenecks. Interest groups will make the same objections to new train lines as are made to new motorways; often with good reason.
Now that the Government have taken control of so much of the railway system, they should examine options such as longer trains and platforms, double-decker trains—which will require some bridge-raising—or new technology that will enable more trains per hour to use the same piece of track. At the moment, using steel-on-steel technology creates a safety constraint because it necessitates long braking distances and long separation of train from train. During the morning peak time, if one flies over congested parts of the country in a light aircraft, one can see massive congestion on the roads, with buses, lorries, coaches and cars bumper to bumper because they can approach each other closely. However, railway tracks are largely empty. They are punctuated by a few trains, which are separated, for obvious safety reasons. The Minister needs to consider the technology used.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Following privatisation, one of the main successes was that more people and freight were travelling by rail. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the whole thrust of the Government's 10-year transport plan is in jeopardy because more than 50 per cent. of investment was to be private? That would have alleviated the problem of lack of capacity for commuter trains and freight. Where does he think that the Government will find the investment that the private sector would otherwise have made before the demise of Railtrack?.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I was about to talk about money. We need massive sums of private investment throughout our transport system. When people are free to invest, they invest large sums of money. Last year was a record one for car purchases, which is a sure sign that people feel that they have to make their own transport provision. Of course, they cannot buy their own road space. They have a problem because the Government has a monopoly on road space

205WH
and does not supply enough of it. People are willing to spend a lot of money on their own flexible transport system. As my hon. Friend says, we are about to undergo the same experience with the railways.
Investors would be happy to invest in decent means of conveyance along railway routes in and out of our major towns and cities, but that is currently blocked by indecision, or by wrong decisions taken by the Government. For example, my local train company would love to spend more on new trains, but agonising negotiations on its franchise renewal have taken far longer than they should have done. Investment has been put on ice by the Government's inability to cut through difficulties and conclude negotiations. That they have constantly changed policy and intervened directly and indirectly via the Strategic Rail Authority undoubtedly complicates the matter.
Mr. James Gray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the users are prepared to spend a lot of money on our railways? It is especially true of the commuters he mentions; commuters from Chippenham spend £3 million per year. In that context, would he support the activities of the largest commuter organisation ever known, the British Rail Advisory Group, run by my constituent, Mr. David da Costa? He has suggested a strike by rail users on 1 March. Only by withdrawing our support for the railways on 1 March can we make it plain to the Government what they would be losing if they did not have us.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend draws me down a dangerous road, or railway line. I sympathise with the aims of that worthy organisation. I hope that the Government and the railway companies would want high-level discussions with my hon. Friend's constituent and his group to avoid the need for direct action. I share the frustrations of his constituent and many of my own. I try to use the railways whenever possible, but I find it increasingly difficult to do so because of the problems that I have identified.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend recall the Deputy Prime Minister saying almost five years ago that, within five years, this country would have a train system of which we would be proud? Bearing it in mind that we have 16 weeks to go until we reach the end of those magical five years, what chance does my right hon. Friend think the Deputy Prime Minister has of achieving his ambition?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point in a delightfully mischievous way. I share his fear that we will not see a transformation within the next 16 weeks; the record so far is of continuing decline and disastrous decisions. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister had to be taken off the case, and we read from authoritative sources that the current Secretary of State is about to go the same way. I note that, after his long holiday in India, he does not have the time to be with us this morning; that is a great pity, in view of the strong interest from a wide range of Members.
Mr. David Lidington: My right hon. Friend referred to the delay in taking decisions about
206WH
refranchising. I draw his attention to the fact that it is now some 15 or 16 months since M40 Trains was selected as the preferred bidder for the Chiltern franchise, which everyone accepts is one of the best-run railway franchises. We still have not had a decision, which has added to the uncertainty and the delay in investment. Is it not time that we had some decisions from the Government?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes another effective point, with which I entirely sympathise. I hope that the Minister will try to lift some of the fog and gloom from railway policy. He could tell us his deadlines for the important franchises that are out for competition or negotiation and whether the franchise holders will be given a decent length of franchise to make long-term investment worth while. He could tell us whether the authoritative briefings in the press that the Government are seeking a major amalgamation of the train companies are correct. If those briefings are correct, how will they be carried out in relation to the existing pattern of franchise award and negotiations? Will the move be another cause of delay and disruption? How will the amalgamations be carried out against the strong competition policy? That is largely driven by often sensible rules from Brussels that mean that it would be difficult for the Government to do all the pro-monopoly and cartel work that they might like to do on this subject, as well as some others. It is time that we had some answers, because we need more investment by the train-operating companies.
More important, the Minister owes it to hon. Members to tell us about the Government's timetable for getting Railtrack back into operating shape and into the private sector, which I believe is their intention. The Minister speaks on behalf of a Government who say that they want a private sector Railtrack in the form of a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. Will he give us a timetable for when we will know more about that bid, when the documentation will be sent to potential bidders and when the deadline will be for interested parties and consortia to bid for such interesting and potentially valuable assets?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only benefit that commuters in my area are seeing is the batch of splendid new trains that was ordered the week after Connex won the franchise under the previous Conservative Government; the one positive and immediate fruit of privatisation? The Deputy Prime Minister may have been thinking of the fact that it took five years to build those trains and others like them up and down the country when he promised a better railway system within five years. It is no good having the best trains in the world unless some of the concerns that my right hon. Friend has rightly set out about Railtrack are met. The trains need decent tracks to run on.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and glad that he has given yet another example of how privatisation worked in its early years before this Government decided to do it enormous damage by the wrong kind of regulation and the wrong kind of bankruptcy. We now learn that the Government believe that £4.5 billion should be made available to the railway

207WH
industry, on top of the £34 billion in their 10-year transport plan. Will the Minister confirm that and place on record for the first time how much of the 10-year plan money is destined for railway track, as opposed to other railway spending? Will he tell us how much money is destined for Railtrack and its successor-in-title in the next three years?
That is the minimum of information that we should expect in the House of Commons and that the Government will have to supply to their company limited by guarantee and any other bidder interested in Railtrack. I do not understand why it is such a secret. We all know that they will have to disclose that information. It is impossible for commercial interests to compile a sensible bid and come up with a decent view on whether Railtrack, in its current shape, has positive or negative value to them without knowing what the flow of Government subsidy into the organisation will be.
The decision to bankrupt Railtrack was taken by the Government who had it in their power to negotiate and do a deal with the Railtrack that was then in existence. We all know that that company was going to receive public money and that there was the negotiation over how much it needed in view of the regulatory constraints imposed upon it. I can guarantee that it will now be a lot dearer. The Government will have to put a lot more money into the successor-in-title to Railtrack than if they had done a sensible deal with Railtrack, instead of deciding to put it into receivership on 5 October.
We are now three months on from the receivership. We are no clearer about how much money is available and what sort of bidders might come forward. We know no more about how a not-for-profit company can raise private capital. It is quite an unusual concept to raise private capital without profit or dividends to distribute to reward the people who make the investment. One presumes that it will be bond-financed and that the short-term cost of capital of the company limited by guarantee will be higher than the cost of capital of a for-profit, equity-based company because bond finance is carried out at higher interest rates than equity finance raised at dividend yield. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's latest thoughts on those important issues.
It is also a great disappointment to many of us on the Conservative Benches that the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), the Deputy Chief Whip, is not here. We read in The Guardian—how could it possibly be wrong? —that the Deputy Chief Whip is now the main agent of running the railways. I refer, of course, to the Government Deputy Chief Whip; the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is assiduous in his duties and understands the importance of railways. I can quite understand why the Government Deputy Chief Whip is not here. He is obviously embarrassed that his secret activities have found their way into The Guardian. Will the Minister confirm the 10 Downing street line; that The Guardian has made up this story and the Deputy Chief Whip is not attempting to fix the difficult industrial relations problems of the railway?
Mr. Mark Prisk: Given the severity of the problems he describes, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is pitiful that out of the more than 400 Labour MPs, just two are present for the debate?
Mr. Redwood: It is noticeable that there are not many here. Many Labour Members are deeply embarrassed by the state of the railways and do not wish to have to hear again just how bad it is. Perhaps many of them have not been able to get here yet this morning because the trains are so appallingly bad. They are now taking to the inadequate roads.
Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend is quite right to put that charitable interpretation on the matter. After all, yesterday's Evening Standard told us that out of 55 London Labour MPs, only one could be bothered to come to a debate on the tube. Perhaps the others were stuck on the tube.
Mr. Redwood: Their embarrassment on this matter is understandable. However, I want to transcend party politics and make a plea to the Government; the money that is being put towards transport investment now should come forward rapidly but sensibly. It should be applied to making real improvements, which means buying the equipment needed to do the job. Nothing can really move on the railways at a satisfactory pace or in a satisfactory way until the Government make a series of decisions. They must decide how they will get Railtrack out of administration more quickly and into the private sector again, as they claim to want to do. They must decide how they will agree franchises of a suitable length with a reasonable number of train companies so that that uncertainty can be cleared away and they can get on with providing the private investment.
I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that nothing in the current structure of the SRA and the receivership would impede the plans that I have suggested, which seem to have been generally accepted in my area, for a new station, a transport interchange and all the rest. Much of that can be paid for out of private investment and development gain, but we need a favourable wind from the SRA, the Government and the receiver, as Railtrack has an interest in the development. The main mover will be South West Trains. I trust that its franchise will soon be sorted out and it will then be fully committed to the scheme.
Is the Government's stance, as of 10 o'clock today, to remain disengaged from the industrial disruption that we are witnessing which is spreading and getting worse? In view of the close friendships and links between certain rail unions and the Government, could the Government play a role through the Deputy Chief Whip or otherwise? It would be a great pity if our train system were further disrupted as a result of pressures and politics in one trade union. The travelling public deserve better and I hope that the Minister will respond in a similar spirit.
Many hon. Members want to join the debate, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. I could say much more about the lamentable state of our railways and our transport system, but I shall not burden the Minister with yet more questions. I just hope that he will provide greater certainty about the reprivatisation of Railtrack, the new private investment that could then flow and the franchise terms for many train-operating companies.
9.51 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I shall start with a comment that will please the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I declare an interest, in that I have five non-profit-making £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley Light Railway company. I am also president of that railway's society. I declare the interest because that railway's future could be badly affected if we do not keep a decent railway system running into platforms 1 and 2 at Keighley station.
I was surprised by and welcomed many of the ideas for improvements proposed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). However, it is disappointing that the Conservatives could have implemented many of those ideas in their 18 years in office, but did not. They lacked a commitment to our railway system, railway users and the men and women who run it. Proposing those ideas at this stage made the right hon. Gentleman's speech a little empty, although I enjoyed it because I am a rail enthusiast and I agree with much of what he said.
One of the biggest mistakes that my party made was probably to abandon our commitment to renationalise the rail network in the run-up to the 1997 general election. Had we stuck with that commitment, it might have deterred the Conservative Government from privatising the rail network. Preventing them from doing that would have been a good deal for us all. Unfortunately, we backed down, which in my view allowed that Government to go ahead with their rail privatisation policy.
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Lady explain why, under British Rail, passenger numbers remained static or declined over a number of years, and why it was only after privatising the railways that we started to see a steady growth in the number of passengers.
Mrs. Cryer: The answer is extremely simple. The clogging up of car transport and the gridlock in our towns was such that people abandoned their cars in favour of railways. That is why there has been an increase in the number of train passengers. I am delighted that people are abandoning their cars and coming on to the railways. My worry is that the chaos on the east coast main line experienced by myself and by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) during the six months between late summer and last spring has put people off. Those living in Leeds started to get back into their cars for business trips down south.
Personally, I did not forsake the railways—I persisted—but I had a hard time. I had reached the point where I felt that we simply could not go on as we were with the existing Railtrack organisation. It was putting many of my constituents and myself into great difficulties.
Mr. McLoughlin: This is the first time that I have heard a Labour Member saying that had Labour stuck to its views, privatisation would not have happened. However, if privatisation had not taken place, would we
210WH
not have seen the entire rail network, rather than one section of it, brought to a standstill by unions over the past couple of days.
Mrs. Cryer: That has no bearing whatever. I said that it would have been good to persist with the threat of renationalisation because it might well have deterred the previous Government, whose plans could have been put to naught if we were elected. The Conservative Government would have thought twice and perhaps sought better solutions. They made a dog's dinner of privatisation, as even some Conservative Members would agree, and the travelling public are paying the price.
Hon. Members based above and beyond Leeds well know the problems experienced with Railtrack during the six months that I mentioned earlier. It started with Hatfield; who could fail to be critical of Railtrack about the happenings on that dreadful day? A whole train came off the track when the steel split. I should have been on that train. I do not often thank Robert Kilroy-Silk, but he invited me on his show that morning, so I went to Borehamwood and missed that particular train. I caught a later train at Stevenage.
I must give credit to GNER. Many people stood on that platform not knowing what on earth was going on. Eventually word came through about the derailment, though we did not know that the rail had split. We waited on the platform and a train came within three-quarters of an hour. After such a dreadful incident, it is a great credit to the men and women who operate the railways that another train was up and running in such a short time. That was the beginning of things going wrong last winter.
Miss McIntosh: I remind the Chamber that I am a minor shareholder in Railtrack; I probably own a few more shares than the hon. Lady. She and I would agree that safety must be paramount on the railways. I share her concern about the broken rail, and the Select Committee investigated that further. Can the hon. Lady advise me? Is the dispute with the RMT about pay, or were two union members found to have seriously breached the safety code? If safety is paramount, should they not be disciplined for breaching the code?
Mrs. Cryer: I have no knowledge of the internal organisation of the RMT, so I know no more than the hon. Lady. Breaches of safety should be disciplined because the safety of the travelling public is paramount.
I shall continue with my list of moans about what affects the travelling public in the Leeds area. After Hatfield, things were getting a little better, but then we had the floods, which devastated part of my constituency and had a dreadful effect on the rail network. The train lines from Leeds are like a spider's web. The Airedale and Wharfdale lines serve my constituency, and many of my constituents depend on those lines to commute to Leeds or to London. Many of the problems that we experience are down to Railtrack. It was responsible for the Hatfield accident, and the floods.
Throughout all that, we had the Leeds First improvement project. The work went on and on; well past what we were told would be the final date.

211WH
I welcomed that much-needed project. There are now 16 platforms at Leeds City station. We used to have total gridlock—unusual on the railways—at the west end of the station, and I experienced problems taking the Airedale or Wharfdale lines into Leeds. Trains coming in from the various commuter areas were held up for 10, 15 or 20 minutes, which often meant missing the connection to London. That happened to me several times; it still happens occasionally.
We must deal with all the problems on the railways, because it is important to keep the travelling public on the trains and not in their cars. Three of my six grandchildren suffer from asthma, which I am convinced is related to increased road traffic. Cars are getting cleaner, but that is not the total answer. We must get people out of their cars and on to the trains; even buses would be better.
Arriva has been short of drivers on the Wharfdale line to Ilkley and on the Airedale line, which goes through my constituency up to Skipton. That is another problem of privatisation. The company's drivers were poached by bigger companies. Train services have been cut; in fact, Arriva had to rewrite the timetable completely. It is getting on top of the problem and has done a deal with ASLEF, whereby pay for Arriva drivers will be improved. I am pleased by that development, which will lessen the potential for poaching by other railway companies.
People's lives are seriously affected by train problems in the Leeds area. I have received hundreds of letters from constituents complaining about their inability to get to Leeds or to London on the east coast main line. One of my constituents works in a bank in Leeds and has a child minder to look after her two children. She said that a few weeks ago she was unable to give the child minder an assurance about when she would be back to relieve her because she could not be sure that the train from Leeds to Silsden would be running. Such problems emanate from faulty privatisation and are the result of bigger companies poaching staff from smaller companies such as Arriva.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to my points. We must achieve an even greater movement of people out of their cars and on to the railway network. I welcomed the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham and look forward to improvements such as those he mentioned.
Shipley, the railway station nearest my house, is 220 miles from London. I believe that six trains run each way, every day, from that station to London. I cannot moan about that service, which is excellent. However, Shipley is a bit short of car-parking facilities, which creates difficulties. I am sometimes tempted to drive to Wakefield, where GNER provides ample parking. At Keighley, in my constituency, there is a shortage of car-parking spaces. Providing more car-parking spaces at stations or having linking bus services from villages to railway stations with a good turn round at stations—as happens in the Harrogate area—would encourage people to use the trains rather than their cars.
I, more than anyone, am aware of the tragedies resulting from car accidents. I want less dependence on cars for that reason, as well as their effect on air quality. However, if dependence on the car is to be reduced, trains must be reliable, safe and cheap. If those three
212WH
essentials cannot be achieved, we will be on a hiding to nothing, whatever happens to Railtrack or its successor, and we will not succeed in providing a rail network to be proud of. I am proud of it now, but there are things going wrong. The Leeds area has had a rough deal for the past 18 months, although there has been some improvement and Leeds City station is becoming a wonderful place.
I want assurances from the Minister about some of the matters that I have raised this morning.
10.6 am
Chris Grayling: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on securing the debate in such an apposite week. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about the present dispute. First, will he condemn the RMT for the disruptive action that is causing so much trouble for the travelling public this week? Secondly, if these wholly unnecessary strikes continue, will the Minister and his party sever their ties with that union?
The dispute is only one element of the chaos surrounding the rail network. I suspect that the Minister will talk about the problems that privatisation and the mismanagement of Railtrack have caused, but the Government must take responsibility for the problems on the rail network that their actions have caused. They have got it wrong on several counts. First, they failed to respond quickly enough to post-privatisation growth on the network. In the past five years, there has been an unprecedented growth in the number of passengers, but no action by the Government. Virtually no major enhancements of the network have begun.
In five years' time, the Government will not be able to deliver significant expansion to capacity because they have not started work on projects that can deliver that expansion. The only projects on the stocks at present are phase 1 of the west coast main line, a small widening project on Chiltern, the Leeds City station project and phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link. That is all. The lot of the travelling public will not improve as a result of those schemes alone.
The Government are determined to take control by over-regulation. They have imposed an increasingly complex regulatory structure that is characterised by hostility between Railtrack and the regulator. There is a huge number of new rules and regulations that the Minister listed in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). In the past few years, 19 new laws have been imposed on Railtrack.
Mr. Don Foster: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about regulations. Is he brave enough to agree with me that although Lord Cullen made some sensible recommendations about improving safety on the railways, his recommendation on safety regulations was not so successful, as it added complexity when what was needed was simplification?
Chris Grayling: The important point, to which I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), is that Lord Cullen's report specifically stated that, since privatisation, safety on the railways

213WH
has improved, not worsened. We all deplore what happened at Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove, but we must not forget that safety is improving, not worsening.
It is clear that the Government's so-called 10-year plan is not a plan. It is a vague collection of wishes and desires that does not represent the clear strategy that the industry is looking for. The Minister and his Government must address that.
The Government's other mistake, which the Deputy Prime Minister has now admitted, was over-dependence on Railtrack to deliver an investment programme that was far beyond the scope of any public company to deliver. That is coming home to roost. The Government expected too much of one organisation, with the result that they were instrumental in putting the burden of pressure on to Railtrack's management, as we have seen in the past few months.
Turning to the events of last year, it is certain that the Secretary of State did not understand the situation in the industry and was shooting from the hip when he decided to force Railtrack into administration. That ill-thought-out decision has destroyed confidence inside the industry. Railtrack was not insolvent; it was taking on a huge investment programme that required it to continue to raise enormous amounts of capital. To enable it to do that, it needed the Government's confidence and support. The Secretary of State withdrew that confidence and made it impossible for Railtrack to continue to deliver its promises. The Government must accept that their own action was fundamentally responsible for bringing to a halt the investment programme in the railways that might have made a difference to the travelling public in the next few years.
It is also clear that, in making his decision, the Secretary of State talked to no one. The Select Committee heard that he did not speak to the Strategic Rail Authority or to the rail regulator. He did not talk in detail about his thoughts and ideas to anyone in the industry. He made his decision on the basis of consultations within his Department and in discussions with professional services firms and investment banks that would benefit financially from his decision. That decision was regrettable, as a result. The situation was made worse because the Secretary of State has been, at least, inconsistent in his stories about the chain of events leading to Railtrack's administration.
Why does all that matter? Why do we keep pressing the Minister on the situation, his decisions and his discussions? It matters because the Secretary of State made a decision without thinking it through, without taking proper advice and without having a clear idea of what was to happen next. The immediate consequence is that investment has dried up. I shall give an example from one of my two local franchises, South Central. The special-purpose vehicle that was designed to deliver important improvement for passengers is now on the shelf because of the uncertainty in the industry. The situation has had an enormously adverse effect on morale among the Railtrack work force. Does the Minister not understand that many of the shareholders who lost their savings are the same people he expects to
214WH
deliver improvements over the next few years? It is extraordinary that the Government fail to understand that.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I keep hearing Conservative Members saying that we should support Railtrack, but they refuse to tell us how much more money they would provide to support Railtrack. Can the hon. Gentleman give us a figure today, for the record?
Chris Grayling: I simply return the question to the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe that confiscating the assets of railway workers is an appropriate way to encourage proper performance in the rail industry?
Mr. Redwood: It is very clear that if we had given rather less than the Government are now giving to the administrator, Railtrack would have been over the moon.
Chris Grayling: I thank my right hon. Friend for that.
The other fundamentally flawed decision by the Secretary of State last year concerned the franchise round. Within four weeks of taking over his job, he intervened in a process that was close to delivering long-term franchises and a long-term commitment to companies such as GNER, which would then have been able to deliver investment of the kind that the hon. Member for Keighley seeks to improve the quality of the services that her constituents enjoy. The Secretary of State's decision to revert to two-year franchise renewals brought that process to a complete halt. I have been told by rolling stock companies and train operators that it has fundamentally damaged the process of investing in infrastructure and new rolling stock, and that is greatly to be lamented.
Now we see the Government scrambling around in all directions, trying to work out what happens next. On the funding front, I asked the Secretary of State a few weeks ago whether Railtrack's successor will operate within the same budget as that set out for Railtrack for control period 2 over the next five years. The answer was yes. Now we learn that that was not true. In fact, the rail industry will get an extra £4.5 billion that the Government denied to Railtrack, although Railtrack had told the Government that it would be necessary in order to bring the network up to a level of quality that would improve the lot of the passenger.
There is a singular lack of a strategy for the industry. We hope next week to see the Strategic Rail Authority's plan to implement the Government's ambitions. However, even that plan seems to be veiled in confusion. It was drawn up by the previous chief executive of the SRA, who was sacked when the new chairman took over in December. I am not sure whether the plan is Richard Bowker's or Mike Grant's. That may not matter anyway, because John Birt has now been brought in to draw up another plan for transport. It is interesting to note that this is the second time that the Government have brought in a senior television executive to try to sort out our transport infrastructure. It did not work last time, although Lord Macdonald is still a Minister, so why should it work this time? Have the Government considered bringing in experts on transport, rather than television, to help them to deliver their transport strategy?

215WH
We have no clear idea about what happens next in relation to Railtrack. There is no timetable. If we ask questions, Ministers flannel. We do not know if the next owner of Railtrack will be public or private. Ministers have been reluctant to be clear about that in Select Committee discussions. We have no idea who will repay the debt that the Government are running up with the Railtrack administrator under the commercial loan agreement. By the end of the administration period, the administrator will owe £2 billion or more to the Government, and there is no clear indication of where the money to repay that loan is to come from.
We are starting to hear wild rumours about services. Will there be a Beeching 2, whereby we lose rural lines to create extra capacity on the main network? Will there be fewer trains so as to make them all run on time? That would be disastrous for people who are already crammed into their morning suburban trains.
Where do we stand? What can the travelling public expect? On my local line, we were hoping fairly soon to get platform extensions and longer trains as part of the South West Trains plan for its franchise extension; but no, that is on the shelf. The company told me that, given the current hiatus, it is unlikely that the work can be done until 2007. Many other renewals around the network are running late.
Yesterday I asked the Minister a question about when South Central, Chiltern Railways and South West Trains can expect their franchise agreements to be completed. I was told that it would be unhelpful for the Government to speculate. Is it really unhelpful for us to know when our local train companies will get the security that they need to invest in the future of their passenger services? On large projects, it is now impossible for the Government to deliver major investment programmes that will be open in five years' time. It is too late; it cannot be done.
There are other flies in the ointment. The Government are committed over the next few years to implementing the advanced train protection system—ATP—at a substantial cost. Yet people in the industry tell me that it will not be possible to deliver major enhancements to the network at the same time as introducing ATP. What will the Government do? Will ATP come first or second?
Miss McIntosh: During an Adjournment debate that I secured at the end of last year, the Minister had to correct himself and say that he did indeed envisage a role for the independent rail regulator. Can my hon. Friend press the Minister to clarify the role of independent regulation if Railtrack were to remain in private hands?
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister was listening to that question and will be able to answer it at the end of this debate.
During a meeting yesterday with one of the rolling stock companies, I was told that, in effect, orders for new trains have dried up because of the current chaos in the industry. As a result, there will be a hiatus before passengers see the next generation of trains that are crucial to the Government's aim of meeting the growth targets in their 10-year plan.
Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend and I represent constituencies with a very high proportion of
216WH
commuters, and in many cases it is commuters who are bearing the brunt of what is becoming a second-rate service. My own constituency has witnessed a significant decline in commuter services since September. Is the same true of my hon. Friend's constituency?
Chris Grayling: I have a constituent who keeps a record—he and I joke about it—of the performance of the trains that he catches to and from work. I asked him that very question a couple of weeks ago, and he replied that services have definitely deteriorated since the shambles of Railtrack's being taken into administration.
When will there be a clear timetable for investment in the network? When will the current franchise replacement round be completed? Will the Minister make it clear whether ATP or infrastructure improvements will come first? Bearing in mind the comments of the chairman of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in this week's edition of The Sunday Times, will the Minister explain clearly what progress is being made in getting Railtrack out of administration? By what date will that definitely happen? Will he confirm that the changes will not mean cuts in services in order to deliver better statistics for the Government?
Mrs. Ann Cryer: If bringing Railtrack back into permanent private ownership is so important and the hon. Gentleman is so committed to it, does he also think that it would be a good idea for all of our roads to be privately owned? What is the view of the road hauliers, who are good friends of the Conservative party, and of some car users?
Chris Grayling: As I have said, what the industry needs is a strategy, rather than the current directionless shambles. We look to the Minister and his colleagues to deliver the sense of direction that is lacking at the moment. If the Government do not recognise their mistakes and begin to deliver such a strategy quickly, the travelling public will face a bleak future.
10.22 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: It is a very rare occasion for a Welsh nationalist to congratulate the former colonial governor of Wales—as the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), was once known—but I am delighted to do so, because the debate that he has instigated is timely. There was almost an even more amazing occurrence, in that he was tempted down the path of supporting a rail strike, albeit of a different kind. However, he did not quite reach that point, so we must be contented with the rare event of a Welsh nationalist supporting a Conservative-initiated debate.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the boycott of the railways proposed by BRAG on 1 March. I should make it clear, however, that what is proposed is not a strike, but simply that people withhold their use of a particular service.
Mr. Thomas: The withholding of one's labour or service does indeed constitute a strike; that is what I should want to call it.

217WH
I want to discuss the railway infrastructure in Wales, particularly mid-Wales, in the light of recent events such as Hatfield and the Government's takeover of Railtrack in October. The Cambrian line in mid-Wales is one of the most rural lines in the United Kingdom. Although there might be some hesitation, I could name every rural railway station on it without fear of repetition—aficionados of the panel game "Just a Minute" would recognise the style of Clement Freud—for more than one minute and still not reach Machynlleth. I want to impress on hon. Members that the Cambrian line is a rural line that is absolutely vital to mid-Wales.
Mr. Richard Bacon: I spent a Christmas in Machynlleth, which I understand had the last Welsh Parliament about 500 years ago. Is it possible that the reason why the area is now governed by those other than the Welsh is because nobody could find Machynlleth? It is too far away.
Mr. Thomas: That may have been the last time we had a Welsh Parliament but it was not the last Welsh Parliament; we have one yet to come. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman looks forward to that.
The Cambrian line has a two-hourly service and three trains on a Sunday. There has been no freight for at least seven years since oil delivery to Aberystwyth was taken off the rails, to the annoyance of anyone who now drives there; people get stuck behind tankers delivering oil that was once carried on rail. The clear single-line track that goes from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and up the coast to Pwllheli cannot be improved or deliver more than a two-hourly service unless a number of signalling and loop improvements are introduced.
The plan exists for a £6.5 million investment to improve the line by introducing an hourly service and to improve punctuality. Currently, punctuality stands at 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., so hon. Members can imagine how many trains are missed at connections in Wolverhampton and Birmingham after leaving mid-Wales and how many trains are missed when returning. The number of times that I have caught taxis from Shrewsbury—of course, at the rail company's expense—is an uncomfortable thought. A meeting on Saturday with the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth rail passengers association gave me further anecdotal evidence of how often that happens and how poor punctuality has been.
The good news is that there is a Wales and Borders franchise in place and significant improvements to services have been made by Wales and Borders as the outline franchisee for the whole of Wales. That has been achieved under present arrangements. The difficulty is that without infrastructure improvements, we will never have an hourly service or a proper rail service that the tourism industry, students at Aberystwyth college, general business and the public need in rural Wales. Such an hourly service would sustain, over long distances, the fragile rural communities of Wales.
The money for the £6.5 million plan exists. Although the National Assembly for Wales need not do so, it has pledged a significant part of its transport infrastructure grant; some £2.5 million. The other £4 million has been
218WH
agreed, in principle, by the Strategic Rail Authority, but has been put on hold since October. I wonder whether that date is significant. Since October, Railtrack has told us that it cannot progress with the Dyfi junction loop and improvements on the Cambrian line; not because it does not have the money but because it does not have the engineers.
The Minister seems to agree on that, but train-operating companies have told me that the engineers could be found in private companies. We have also been told that Railtrack is prioritising major systems such as the west coast and east coast main lines; I have major worries about that. These are important UK-wide strategies but the Government face a difficulty because they are now responsible for Railtrack. Should they abandon rural routes in favour of main lines, or maintain a UK-wide and Wales-wide railway system?
Abandoning the Cambrian line improvement project is dangerous because it is the foremost priority for transport in Wales, as the Welsh Assembly has said. If it is improved, we will have proper rural railway infrastructure in Wales. The Assembly said that it was prepared to put in £2.5 million and the SRA said that it would put in £4 million, but we have not had the reassurance that smaller projects such as the Cambrian line will be pushed ahead. The abandonment of that project represents the abandonment of everything that is happening in Wales at the moment.
I press the Minister to look again at what is being done on the Cambrian line in particular and in Wales in general. The 10-year plan from the Strategic Rail Authority is expected in two weeks' time, and it must contain improvements to the Cambrian line in addition to upgrades in other parts of Wales. If that does not happen, a difficult, but ultimately successful, partnership that has been built up between the private sector—the train-operating companies and Railtrack—and the National Assembly for Wales will be abandoned, resulting in the loss of a huge sum of money from our transport infrastructure. Given the money available—there is a question about certain engineering facilities—those improvements must be seen to go ahead.
There has been an 18-month hiatus already, but we still do not have the all-Wales franchise that we were promised. Now there is a further hiatus with regard to a project that was supposed to start in October. That is not the way to run a railway. The Government's announcements indicate that the money and resources are there, but the strategy and management are not.
10.30 am
Mr. Don Foster: It is traditional to begin a contribution by congratulating the hon. Member who has secured the debate on securing it, which has always struck me as odd. I should prefer to congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) not on securing the debate but on his contribution, which was helpful. I also congratulate him on his recent newspaper articles, although I did not agree with all of them. In particular, his article in The Independent was a useful contribution. Like the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I am conscious that we are debating the state of the railways, and I agree with him that we do not need Lord Birt to tell us their current state; they are in a parlous state, as anybody who tries to use them knows.

219WH
The state of our railways has not been helped in recent days by the unnecessary strike action by the RMT, and I suspect that many Government and Opposition Members agree with me on that point. Frankly, the RMT's leaders are off their trolleys because the travelling public need further strikes like they need holes in the head. If disruption of the type that we have seen during the past few days continues, we will see large numbers of people beginning to drift away from our railways—passengers may protest on 1 March, by boycotting the railways—which will lead to the increased congestion and chaos on our roads to which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) referred.
We will see the railways moving into decline, and RMT members will start to lose their jobs. Their action was foolish because it created chaos for the travelling public. I am in favour of everyone, including RMT members, benefiting from a successful railway. However, we do not have a successful railway, and RMT members ought to be working as hard as everybody else to ensure that we get one. That said, the hon. Member for Keighley praised many people who work on the railways. I am conscious that morale in the railway system is low, and it is incumbent on all of us to keep saying how grateful we are to the many people who work on the railways who are doing a good job. If we have criticisms, they are of management, and not of those who work on the railways.
What is the state of the railways? The Secretary of State, who appeared on GMTV this morning, summed it up by stating, "It is simply unacceptable." He is absolutely right; it is unacceptable, but what will be done about it? To re-formulate the three words used by the hon. Member for Keighley, how are we going to create a safe, reliable and affordable railway? Our current railway system is none of those three things, and we can all cite figures to illustrate that point. One set of figures that I was working on overnight is for delays. They were announced recently as a result of parliamentary questions that I asked before Christmas. An analysis of those figures demonstrates that in the first eight months of last year, compared with the first eight months of the previous year, there was a 70 per cent. increase in delays of five minutes or more on our railways.
Calculated in terms of numbers of working days lost, the figures demonstrate that last year an amazing 3,400 years were lost from people's lives as a result of train delays. Of course, business, too, lost large sums of money because those people were not working. There are many other ways of illustrating the current problem, but what are we to do about it? The real problem is that the Government's solution, which we have heard time and again—the Secretary of State repeated it on television this morning—is the 10-year plan, which is somehow supposed to solve all our problems on the railway.
The 10-year plan is a smokescreen. An analysis of what the Government say that the 10-year plan will deliver shows that it will not deliver very much at all. We are told that it is £180 billion for transport, but if we look at that at a constant price base it is only £157 billion at current prices. If we take away the money that is already spent on public transport—the public resource expenditure, the local council's pay and so on—only £109 billion is for direct investment in the transport
220WH
system. Of that, the vast majority is to come from the private sector, meaning that only £54.7 billion of public investment comes from the Government. Some of that will go on public transport and our road-building programme, so £54.7 billion becomes £32.2 billion for public investment in public transport and less than 40 per cent. of that will go to the railways.
That comes to a staggering £12.7 billion. So of the £180 billion that should solve all the problems, the Government are putting in a staggering £12 billion. That might seem a lot of money, but it is little more than the Conservative Government spent on our railways. Indeed, some analyses show that it is less than the Conservatives spent on our railways. The 10-year plan is not the solution. I want to suggest a five-point plan that the Government could put in place straight away.
First, they could take action to tackle excessive fares by including in the new franchise round a further tranche of fares within the regulatory mechanism. They could also take tougher action on punctuality. I hope that they do not continue with the perverse penalty system. Secondly, they should publish immediately the Health and Safety Commission report showing where we are in respect of the implementation of Professor Uff's and Lord Cullen's recommendations. Have the 41 out of 89 recommendations in Lord Cullen's report that were due to be implemented by 19 December 2001, including improvements to signalling in the Paddington area, been implemented? The Minister knows the answer. It is sitting on the Secretary of State's desk, and I hope that we will be told today whether it has happened. Thirdly, the Government could reduce fragmentation by announcing immediately their plans to reduce the number of train-operating companies. Fourthly, they could simplify the regulatory machinery, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said. Fifthly, they could reform the whole regime and create a simpler structure by putting the rail regulator and the safety regulator into the Strategic Rail Authority, along the lines of the Civil Aviation Authority structure.
The Government could act on those five positive proposals to start reducing the chaos on our railways by sorting out the structure and allowing the experts to come in, and to start to manage the railway service so that it becomes safe, reliable and affordable.
10.40 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: I did not have the pleasure of hearing the Secretary of State on television this morning. He is especially beleaguered at the moment and it is as if he can do nothing right. I do not want hon. Members to think that we do not agree with some of his actions. I put the Opposition behind the Secretary of State in agreeing with his analysis of the railways. When he was asked on "Newsnight" on 20 December whether the railways had got better since the Labour party came to power, he said courageously, "Of course not. They have become worse."
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on securing the debate and on what we all seem to agree was a thoughtful and telling contribution. He got to the heart of the problem when he talked about the need, and the inability, to increase capacity. He also made some telling points about loading gauge and, implicitly, the need for continuation

221WH
of the west coast upgrade. The Minister raised his eyebrows when my right hon. Friend talked about trying to get trains closer together. However, that is common practice on the continent, and in the channel tunnel Euro 3 signalling is used. As my right hon. Friend knows, the most important thing that we can do to increase capacity is to introduce such signalling on the entire network. At the thick end, that could cost approximately £8 billion to install, and shows why private investment is so important. It also shows the great loss of private investment from the Government's 10-year plans as a result of the Secretary of State's actions.
It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I was in Keighley before Christmas and bumped into someone from the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society who spoke glowingly about the hon. Lady's contribution as a vice-president of that august organisation. It came as a surprise that she could write off a 25 per cent. increase in passengers and blame Railtrack for floods and pestilence. Her most telling comment was about Arriva and its desire for additional drivers. Arriva offered more money to drivers, and that is why there is a strike.
The strike is all about differentials. I never thought that we would return to the time of differentials. If we do not like the colour of our waistcoats, we go on strike. If we are not happy that a couple of our union officials have been disciplined because they have been careless with health and safety, we go on strike. We are now striking about differentials. The last time that there was a strike on the railways about differentials, Abba were at the peak of their powers, flared trousers were common, and Ministers used to go around secretly meeting trade union officials. It sounds as if we might be right to return to differentials, because that appears to be the current situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) talked a lot of sense about the strike. I would like to make a contribution. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is here. His constituent is forming a strike—for want of a better word, and it seems to me that the Labour party should show some solidarity. Those hon. Members who are sponsored by the trade unions and railways should return a day's subscription as a way of showing some solidarity with commuters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell was right to point out the £4 billion extra that the Government are having to fork out because of Railtrack. When Labour Members start to tease and ask what the Conservative party would do, they should remember that the Government are putting out more money than Railtrack was asking for. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) talked about the number of taxis that he has had to take from Shrewsbury. At least he can show some solidarity with and understanding for Lord Birt, who is a considerable expert in matters of taxis.
It is now three months since Railtrack went into administration. I remind the Minister that the Secretary of State said at the time that it would be out within three to six months. The Minister responsible in another place said yesterday that it would take many months. What is
222WH
the real position? We know that the Secretary of State's decision is likely to be subject to two court cases — one concerning the shareholders, the other concerning Railtrack. We know that costs are beginning to spiral out of control due to problems linked to administration and that taxpayers are having to foot the bill. The administration is already costing the taxpayer £1 million a day, while fees for advisers are costing an additional £500,000 a day.
On top of that, there are many official and unofficial Government advisers. It may interest hon. Members to know that I have been making a tally of the number of people who are advising either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. The latest appointment for the Prime Minister has been made today, with Mr. Matthew Elson from McKinsey joining up. Other advisers include Wendy Thomson from the Audit Commission, Geoff Mulgan, who is working on a report on social exclusion and transport, Adair Turner from the CBI, Penny Hughes from Coca-Cola, Nick Lovegrove from McKinsey, and Arnab Banerji from F&C Management Ltd. This is almost like the middle years of Brezhnev, when each secret policeman had another secret policeman watching him.
There is an old joke about succession in Communist regimes and preparing three envelopes. I shall not bore hon. Members with it, but the final envelope contains the name of the predecessor. It seems that the Secretary of State is holding the third envelope, because today The Daily Telegraph quotes a Government source as saying:
"Unlike David Blunkett, who bought time at the Home Office by dumping on what Jack Straw had done, Steve hasn't taken the knife to Prescott's legacy— and that is maybe what he should do. It is all Prescott's legacy. Steve has been Transport Secretary for six months and the problem is over four years."
Never let it be said that I was not the first to announce a new Government strategy in the Chamber.
There are several questions to which we need answers. In particular, we need clear ideas on how the proposed new company limited by guarantee will be funded. We need to know the level of subsidy because we must ensure open competition in the running of that company, and other companies that may want to bid for the Railtrack business. We need to know where its responsibilities begin and end, and how it will be regulated.
The Secretary of State ran a coach and horses through the regulatory regime when he decided to put Railtrack into administration. When will Railtrack come out of administration, and who will decide where that business will go? Will the European regulations on competition be implemented? We must be sure that our railways recover from the disaster of the past three months.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr.David Jamieson): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on securing the debate on an important and topical matter. I am happy to deal with the points that he and his hon. Friends have made. I read with interest his article in The Independent on 2 January, entitled:
"We can solve all our rail problems by taking a more rational approach."

223WH
Nothing that I have heard from the Opposition today would lead me to believe that they had a rational approach.
I was interested to see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham seated himself next to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the Opposition transport spokesman. Who is the authentic voice of the Tories on transport? The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar points at the right hon. Member for Wokingham, confirming that the right hon. Gentleman is the authentic voice
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about the Chiltern line. The SRA has briefed my officials on the shape of the emerging franchise. The position is being finalised and I expect a formal request for approval shortly, which will be good news for many people
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said that there were only two Labour Members present. I counted five at that time; there were as many Labour Members as Conservatives. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is not here to hear that; he might read Hansard later, or his hon. Friends may tell him what I have said.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the current strikes. The Government believes that disagreements over pay should not lead to strikes, especially in vital public services, because they cause great inconvenience to the public and will not contribute to railway recovery. I hope that both sides will get round the table and resolve those matters very soon. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was advocating militancy and strikes. I look forward to hearing about him sorting out those problems with beer and sandwiches in the North Wiltshire Tory headquarters.
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I will not give way because I want to respond to several points. The right hon. Member for Wokingham made a point about the £4.5 billion provided for the SRA, alleging that that was extra funding. All the elements of that so-called extra funding have been previously announced and have been public knowledge for some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) spoke with great clarity and graphically outlined some of the difficulties and the strengths of the rail system in her area. She recognised that many improvements had taken place, and spoke about the integration of buses, road and rail. I can say to her and to the right hon. Member for Wokingham that local authorities have received substantial sums of money for local transport integration. My hon. Friend mentioned staff being poached from one company to another; an issue also mentioned obliquely when the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) spoke about the shortage of staff to carry out necessary work. The Department for Education and Skills has its framework skills strategy and the Strategic Rail Authority has its concept of a national rail academy, both of which should help to address the serious skills shortages.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion spoke about the line from Shrewsbury through to Machynlleth, which is vital to the future economic success of Wales, to the
224WH
university of Aberystwyth and to tourism. The Government want progress made on that line as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman articulated the problem; it is a matter not of funding, but of finding people with the right skills to carry out the work. One reason why people may have been pulled away from such projects—only temporarily, I hope—is the massive underinvestment in other parts of the railway system, which has drawn some of the requisite expertise elsewhere.
Does the right hon. Member for Wokingham recognise this scenario:
We have gridlock. The rush hour begins at 6 a.m. and is still in full flow after three hours. In many parts of the south-east the traffic queue from one junction runs to the queue to the next"?
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Mr. Jamieson: I see that he does. So he should, as he made those comments in another article in 1996. There was no Labour Government then; he was talking, after 17 years of Tory government, about a lack of investment. To hear Conservative Members today, one would think that the rail industry was in a state of terminal decline. We heard Mr. Doom, Mr. Gloom and others from the Conservative side.
It would be helpful to hear an alternative viewpoint, so let me remind Conservative Members of some facts, however unpalatable they may find them. In the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, total investment in the railways increased by 29 per cent. Over the past four years, the total length of the railway network increased by 20 per cent. In the four weeks before Christmas last year, record passenger numbers were registered.
One reason why more people are on the railways, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), is that a million more people are working in this country, leading to more economic activity and greater use of the railways.
Equipping trains with the train protection warning system is proceeding apace, with 33 per cent. of trains already fitted. It is expected to rise to 75 per cent. by the end of the year, with the remainder completed by 2003. Numerous station improvements are also in progress or have already been carried out.
On 19 December, the Strategic Rail Authority set out its revised franchising programme to deliver short and long-term improvements to passengers. It is realistic, reflects the experience of users and strikes a balance between securing early gains for passengers that will make a real difference and longer-term investment. Last spring, the franchising programme was bogged down by delay, inactivity and lack of focus; today it is back on track. The rail industry welcomes the initiative and we now look to the train-operating companies to co-operate with the SRA to deliver improvements and restore public confidence.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham might like to hear what Michael Holden, the Railtrack southern regional director, wrote in a recent article.
"We might complain that it is politicians that have brought us to this, but I believe we should be concerned at the way in which our own organisations are delivering and as professionals staff actually sorting it out."

225WH
In the dark, cold days of the new year, we look for a little light relief, levity or even uplift, but I never thought that I would read about levitating trains, which the right hon. Gentleman's article mentions. In a breathtaking analysis, he says that steel wheels are heavy, hard and pummel the rails and that there are too many gradients and bends on our rails. With that clear, critical and intellectual analysis, I can see why the Opposition are in such a muddle—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. Time is up. I ask all hon. Members who are not staying for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

Autism
11 am
Linda Perham: I am delighted to have secured this debate at the beginning of autism awareness year 2002. My initiating it is particularly appropriate because Ivan and Charika Corea, whose initiative autism awareness year is, are my constituents. They live in Buckhurst Hill, Essex, in the London borough of Redbridge with their five-year-old son, Charin, on whose behalf they have fought to access the services that he needs as a child with an autistic spectrum disorder.
Autism is a lifelong developmental disability. This complex condition affects the ability to communicate and socialise with others. Charin is one of an estimated 520,000 individuals in the United Kingdom with autism—60 per 10,000 children under eight, according to the Medical Research Council's "Review of Autism Research: Epidemiology and Causes", which was published last month. It says that
"the prevalence of autism in the adult population is not known."
Charin was born on 3 February 1996 at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel by emergency caesarean, because he was suffering from foetal distress. By the age of 21 months, Charin had changed from an active animated baby into a withdrawn child who was unable to speak, made no eye contact and lived in a world of his own.
The diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder began a time of frustration, anger, desperation and exasperation for Ivan and Charika as they battled for appropriate care for Charin. Ivan wrote to me, other Members of Parliament, voluntary organisations, business people and celebrities. I stand here today introducing this debate for autism awareness year 2002 because of his persistence and commitment. There are many calls on an MP's time, as hon. Members well know, and there are many appeals to lobby for more resources for this underfunded service and that worthwhile cause. Before I met Ivan, I was involved with and supported many health campaigns, but my interest and involvement in autism is almost entirely due to Ivan, Charika and their fight for Charin
Autism awareness year 2002 began, Ivan told me, as
"a small acorn of an idea in our lounge".
It is now the largest ever autism movement in the UK, involving nearly 300 organisations as partners, including the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, the Disabilities Trust, the National Autistic Society, Parents Autism Campaign for Education and Autism London.
One of many pleas made by Ivan for support for the year found its target with the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, which took up the challenge to declare the year with the assistance of the Disabilities Trust. They set up a partners meeting for organisations expressing an interest, at the end of which they had an impressive ribbon to mark the year, which I am wearing, from an organisation called Allergy Induced Autism and an invitation to apply for a grant from the Shirley Foundation. It also supports the all-party group on autism.
I must acknowledge the excellent work of that group, which was formed nearly two years ago and is inspirationally led by my hon. Friend the Member for

227WH
South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). We have 145 Members from both Houses, including Ministers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and our meetings are interesting, informative and well attended
Autism awareness year 2002 is supported by 153 Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 103 just before the general election last year. As a result of the campaign, the Scottish Parliament held a debate on 6 December 2001 on issues surrounding autism and a website to publicise the events and links of the year was launched by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), at the Labour party conference last October.
The year's events started this week with Autism Sunday on 6 January. January has been designated the month of prayer for autism, and members of churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples will pray together for autists throughout the UK.
On 11 February, the Patrick Gunawardena 2002 Education Awards UK will be held in the House to thank MPs, peers, parent groups, carers, charities and the media for supporting the autistic community. Patrick Gunawardena was a distinguished educationist from South Asia who also taught in the UK. On 14 February, an inaugural conference is scheduled to be held by the prestigious London health charity the King's Fund, followed by nine regional seminars
What is autism awareness year 2002 all about? The mission statement is to raise awareness through partnerships on the issues surrounding autism and to influence and inspire to action those individuals in key positions to facilitate the changes needed. The aims and objectives are to target the political, educational, health and social care decision and policy makers and primary budget holders; to improve awareness in the relevant statutory sectors, giving them much-needed knowledge of what autism is, its effect on the individual concerned and what can be done to bring about improvement; to inspire local authorities to take a long, hard look at autism and to develop and implement clearly defined strategies to deal with the increase in this condition; to influence the Government to ensure equity and equality for autistic individuals; to achieve for parents with children who are autistic the ultimate benefit of being able to gain access to needed services in their local community; to work towards inclusion of those with autism at all levels; and to raise public awareness beyond the myths
Why is it important to have a year-long campaign? When referring to Charin at the beginning of my speech, I said that estimates of people with ASD in the UK are at about the half million mark, but many who work in the autism field believe that that figure could be doubled, as many people are undiagnosed and unknown to the authorities. That is why I strongly support the all-party group's call for clear data gathering by the Government, so that proper planning and provision can be made for the services that ASD people need.
Other important issues relating to autism are illustrated by the following statistics and facts: 33 per cent. of adults with autism have no social involvement; only 12 per cent. of those diagnosed with autism are able to work; ASD often falls into the gap between mental health and learning disabilities; only 38 per cent. Of
228WH
people with autism or Asperger's have a community care assessment, and of those only 16 percent. Were offered one; only 45 per cent. of those assessed received the services specified in the assessment; 49 per cent. of adults with autism or Asperger's are still at home with their parents; the average lifetime cost of supporting an autistic person is estimated to be £2.9 million, excluding the loss to the economy of autistic people who cannot live independently or earn their own living. The total cost to the economy is about £1 billion a year.
The British Institute for Brain Injured Children tells me that the Government are already spending a great deal on autism indirectly, for example on tribunals. A survey by Parents Autism Campaign for Education found that a quarter of its sample had to resort to special educational needs tribunals to get the support they need in several examples: administration and specialist time while the duplication of assessments continues; during transition with accommodation costs and mentoring for adults diagnosed late; meeting the cost of mental health problems caused as a result of late or misdiagnosis and family mental health problems; the prosecution through the criminal justice system of undiagnosed adults and adolescents and those with inadequate support in the community; and excluded children. Above all, autism awareness year is a golden opportunity for families, carers and all those working for people with ASD to shout loudly about autists' needs.
The courses of action identified by groups and individuals who have contacted me include an urgent need for routine screening of young children before going to school and throughout their education; more investment in research into the causes of autism with ring-fenced funding to ensure that it is given the priority it deserves; more investment in schools, specialist units, early intervention and support services including residential and respite care, again with designated funds; increasing awareness of accompanying physical problems, including food allergies and bowel disorders; the need for a diagnostic one-day one-stop shop to prevent concerned families from being passed to a succession of different professionals to secure a clear diagnosis; establishing a clear pathway from diagnosis to intervention to give families proper support; an initiative to promote autism awareness and skills training for all who work with people with autism; recognition of and provision for adult autists; access to appropriate education from pre-school onwards; consistency and equity in funding allocation—the PACE survey found that over a third of parents of autistic children reported difficulties in obtaining LEA funding and a fifth of over-fives received no funding at all; budget pooling by local agencies; the need for autism to have its own classification and not be categorised as a learning difficulty; and increasing the availability of qualified experts including specialist teachers, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, which has been a particular problem in my area for some time. A number of worried families have contacted me and I have raised their concerns with the local health and education authorities and in the House
Redbridge primary care trust has arranged a series of meetings for parents and carers, including one tomorrow. Furthermore, Ivan and Charika have heard that there is a local education panel meeting tomorrow to discuss the future of Charin's specialist speech

229WH
therapy and educational support. They, like so many other parents and carers, feel that they should not have to keep battling for their child's rights. I agree with them.
I pay tribute to the work of local groups that have provided me with information and whose members are tireless in their support for others as well as coping with their own children's needs—some have several ASD children themselves. Redbridge Parents in Partnership, with which I have a long association dating back to my time as a local councillor, celebrates its 10th anniversary in May and I must acknowledge the work of Redbridge Autistic Families Together, Parents of Autistic Children Together and the Autism Professional Interest Group, which are compiling a Redbridge guide to social and communication difficulties services.
In particular, I acknowledge the assistance given to me for the debate by Fiona Loynes, the policy researcher for the all-party autism group; Pam Brooks from the British Institute for Brain Injured Children; and Milena Inzani from Autism London. I leave almost the last word to my constituent, Ivan Corea, whose dream for autism awareness year 2002 has been realised:
"I am really excited by it all. I have worked so hard to raise awareness of the condition as a result of the stress and trauma we went through regarding Charin. It's been so exhausting, but it's worth it. It's wonderful to see it all happening."
I know that the Government and the Minister are prepared to listen and that progress has been made in the past few years on several concerns of those who work to improve the lives of autistic people. I hope that autism awareness year 2002 will act as a springboard for real and sustained advances in the treatment and understanding of those with autistic spectrum disorders, so that those special individuals can achieve their true potential
11.15 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: First, I declare a non-remunerated position as a special councillor on the national council of the National Autistic Society. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). In bringing the debate to the Chamber, she does a service to us all, particularly people with autism and their parents.
Autism is now almost a mainstream issue in the Houses of Parliament. A huge amount of progress has been made, and I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who chairs the all-party group, on their role in ensuring that when MPs receive constituency casework, as we all do, they not only have a better understanding of autism, but are able to stand shoulder to shoulder with their constituents, as the hon. Lady has done this morning. We must ensure that the support that we give our constituents helps to improve their lives.
Autism is a complex condition, primarily because it covers such a wide spectrum. That in itself can cause difficulties. I shall concentrate on the aspects that I believe should be given priority during autism awareness year to ensure that awareness is translated into appropriate action and support.
230WH
It is sometimes said that autism is a rare condition, yet it is estimated that autistic spectrum disorders are approximately four times more common than cerebral palsy and 17 times more common than Down's syndrome. Autism touches the lives of 500,000 families in the UK, and many health, education, social services and other professionals routinely come across people with autism. Problems arise if the professionals do not recognise or suspect autism. If they disregard the significance of the symptoms presented to them or, even worse, make an inappropriate referral or treat the child or adult for something other than autism, that can lead to a downward spiral for the patient. That is the worst-case scenario.
In autism awareness year, we must ensure that the general public are more aware and we need them to be more tolerant when they come across someone with an autistic spectrum disorder. Prejudice in any form is to be abhorred, and it prevents true integration for those with autism. Bullying at school and unkind remarks are still severe problems for children with autism.
Autistic children grow into autistic adults, and a difficulty is that what most people might consider to be odd behaviour—I am always cautious about the use of language and I hope that I have chosen the right words—is sometimes thought rather threatening. Adults will tolerate inappropriate behaviour in a young child, but they are less sympathetic to a strapping young lad in his late teens or an adult in his 20s. They may see the behaviour as threatening, but those of us who deal with autism in our daily lives know that it is just normal autistic behaviour. The general public must develop a much wider tolerance and understanding of people with autism.
I shall touch on professionals and the role that they can play in autism awareness year. It is disheartening when parents take their child to a GP or a hospital specialist and their knowledge of the child is dismissed. Professionals sometimes think that parents become over-emotional, but parents are emotional about their children—I become emotional about my 32-year-old—and that never changes, even when they are 50. Parents may be able to make an important contribution to a diagnosis, and that should not be dismissed because they are emotional about their child. Living with autistic children is not easy and it is not surprising that their parents are sometimes emotional. The professionals should be open minded when parents attend a GP's surgery or a hospital with a child who may be autistic.
We rightly demand of medical professionals that they err on the side of caution if they are unsure and refer the child or adult—late diagnosis is not uncommon—to someone with experience of working with and diagnosing autism. It is different from many other conditions, so a degree of specialism from the medical profession is required to ensure that the diagnosis is accurate and to obtain a clear picture of where the sufferer is on the autism spectrum. That is important in drawing up a programme to help sufferers and their parents or carers. I hope that autism awareness year is recognised by all professionals and the medical profession in particular
During an Adjournment debate on Asperger syndrome, I flagged up a matter of great concern and I hope that you will indulge me, Mr. McWilliam, if I do so again. Adult sufferers, particularly those at the more

231WH
able end of the spectrum, often develop mental health problems on top of the autistic condition. The hon. Member for Ilford, North referred to that. When such people come under the remit of mental health professionals, the autism may not be recognised. If there is a misdiagnosis, the patient may be sectioned under the Mental Health Acts or be given inappropriate drug treatment for a condition other than autism.
It is important that mental health specialists—there are very few who specialise in autism—are able to look through the mental health problems to what we would describe as normal autistic behaviour. The two are often confused and if sufferers get into a downward spiral of mental health treatment with drugs and in-patient stays—it is traumatic for people with autism to go into any hospital, particularly a mental health hospital—their problems are compounded.
I say to the health, social services and education professionals, "Autism awareness year is your year as well." It is a year for professionals to make appropriate referrals and to understand that providing the best educational opportunities—many sufferers have huge potential—requires more than just a little more one-to-one attention. It requires understanding, case by case, of the way in which the condition manifests itself and best practice in maximising each child's potential.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North made two comments that rang a bell with me. First, she rightly said that services are patchy. Where someone lives should not affect whether they have access to appropriate services, and standards must be raised uniformly throughout the country. Secondly, she referred to the experience of her constituents in the case of Charin, using the words "fought" and "battled". As Members of Parliament and hardened politicians, we are used to fighting our corner and fighting battles, but far too often weary parents have to fight too great a battle. They are frequently at a loss over how best to deal with a child and serve its best interests. It should not be that way, and I hope that by the end of this year the battle will have been fought and won.
11.25 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It is an honour to speak in this timely debate at the beginning of autism awareness year, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing it. I also congratulate her on many aspects of her contribution. Seldom have I heard such a good summary of the conditions that affect autistic people and the patchiness of service provision in this country.
It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who is a constant battler on behalf of autistic people. As she said, today's contribution is not her first in such debates, and it will not be her last. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady were kind enough to say good things about the all-party group on autism, which I have the honour to chair, and they also said some nice things about me, although I should point out that the group's successes are ours, not mine.
In the two years since the group was set up, my admiration for fellow Members of the House has grown tremendously. Not once has anyone attempted to use this issue or the group for party advantage. Everyone
232WH
has worked together closely, criticism of the Government has been constructive, praise has been given where due and everyone has offered both criticism and praise. In turn, the Government have responded in the way that we would like Governments to respond always. They have been open, taken up some of our ideas, been prepared to discuss matters with us and helped to move the agenda forward.
The success of the all-party autism group also owes a great deal to the steering group and those outside the House who support us and work with us to ensure that we have information. Thanks to the readiness with which the Government have accepted our ideas in the past two years, we have, in effect, been pushing at an open door, and they should be congratulated on that. A huge task remains ahead of us, however.
I pay tribute to Ivan, Charika and Charin Corea, who have fought hard in the past few months to establish autism awareness year, and it is wonderful that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has secured this debate, given that she is their Member of Parliament. This year is also the 40th anniversary of the National Autistic Society, and I hope that the events associated with that celebration and with autism awareness year enable us to do a great service for autistic people by raising awareness of autism to new levels by the end of the year, not just in the House and among the Government, but throughout the whole country. I also congratulate The Times, which ran its Christmas appeal in aid of the National Autistic Society. In the past month, it has published a series of excellent and informative articles on autism, and it has done a great deal to raise awareness of the issue in the run-up to autism awareness year.
What is important, however, is not how we start the year, but how we end it. We should judge the year on whether we have moved the agenda forward, got more resources into helping autistic people and put an end to the patchy services throughout the country. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is responding to the debate, as I believe that she has the ear of a man at the Treasury who has the ear of an even bigger man at the Treasury. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, autism has an economic dimension. It costs £1 billion a year and has a lifetime cost that is pocket change short of £3 million per autistic person. Those costs can be reduced, but only by putting resources in early.
The all-party group has found that assessment in schools is far from adequate or uniform. All children should be assessed as toddlers to discover whether they have autistic tendencies, and as soon as those are picked up, resources must be put in to help. The more we intervene early and the more resources we put in, as day follows night we will get better outcomes. People will need less support later in life and will be able to make a bigger and more viable contribution to supporting themselves and to the country. We must put money up front to save it at the end. That will eventually involve joined-up thinking between social services, health and education authorities, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that everyone works together to create a uniform service.

233WH
I want briefly to tell hon. Members the story of a constituent of mine who introduced me to the problems of autistic people, but I am afraid that it does not have a happy ending. About four years ago, two mums and a dad came to see me. All had recently found that their children were autistic as toddlers and decided that they wanted their child to have a therapy called the Lovaas technique. However, they were denied that therapy by the local education authority.
The parents decided that one of them would take a test case to the SEN tribunal, and they came to see me about a week before to tell me what was going on. After hearing the case, the tribunal decided that the LEA was within its rights to deny Lovaas therapy, because it was not proven to be better than any other therapy that might be available.
Having won the case, the LEA decided to be generous. It gave Lovaas therapy to two of the families, but not to the one that brought the test case, because that case had been rejected. Those parents had to provide Lovass therapy from their own financial resources. As a result, the family was brought to the brink of financial ruin. A few months ago, the grandmother approached me to update me on the situation. She said that the child had made great progress over the past few years through Lovaas therapy, entirely financed by the family, and they had concluded that it might be possible for the child to have a mainstream school place. That would have been impossible without that privately provided intensive therapy.
I contacted the local education authority and received a letter in December saying that it had identified a mainstream school place for the child and would hold a multi-agency meeting, which takes place next week, to discuss how to support the child's return to mainstream school. The fact that the child can return to school is entirely due to the family's independent private financing of Lovaas therapy, at no expense to the LEA. Having sent the letter to the parents, I found that they knew nothing about the meeting. The LEA had not even told them that discussions were going on or that the meeting was to take place next week—all that was done without their involvement. Nevertheless, they were delighted.
Unfortunately, this week the father telephoned me to say that their marriage has finally broken up. The strain and financial consequences of providing the care proved to be too much of a struggle. That is the result of lack of support for a family that we, through the local education authority and the state, should provide. Consequently, the child will not make progress, the costs to the nation will be higher and the personal costs to the family are enormous. At the end of autism awareness year, we must be in a position whereby such families get the support that they need from the moment that they are identified as having an autistic child right through to their education and throughout adulthood.
Let us not forget the plight of autistic adults in this country. For example, 60 per cent. of autistic adults do not find out that they are autistic until they are 16. By that time, they have been through school and they have
234WH
lost the opportunity to get the support that they need. They become more dependent on the state after that, and we must deal with the problem
I conclude with this brief analogy, which I have used several times, including at the all-party group's last meeting. Every Member of Parliament knows the syndrome represented by what I call the shopping bag lady. She comes to an MP's surgery with a plastic shopping bag full of letters. In my experience, such people are either involved in a court case that they have taken through every court in the land— nobody can understand it, but they think that their MP can help—or they are mums with autistic children, which means that the shopping bag is full of letters that they have had to write over the years in an attempt to get either recognition for the problems that they face or the right sort of support or to get their doctors to recognise the condition. Some have to struggle to get the child's dad to recognise the condition, as mum often spots it before dad.
For many months, such a woman will be told by her GP that she is "a silly worrying mother", which means that mum must battle with the GP to get recognition. Having obtained recognition from the GP, she must battle with the education authority and the health authority. Eventually, when the child gets older, she will battle with the Benefits Agency on his or her behalf. Those plastic bags are full of letters that such women have to write to get services that ought to be automatic and available everywhere. If we start to change the way that agencies provide support for autistic people so that fewer shopping bag ladies have to attend our surgeries, autism awareness year will have done its job.
11.37 am
Liz Blackman: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on introducing the debate. I also congratulate her and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), on raising parliamentary awareness of autism.
As Members of Parliament, we have all touched the lives of the families of those who have the condition known as autism. There are common denominators in every case with which I have dealt. There is always a high level of frustration centring on diagnosis, as well as wrangling or battling—a common theme this morning—about responsibility and funding between different statutory bodies and about the appropriateness and quality of support. I deal with parents, carers, professionals and people with the condition who come into my surgery. That experience was described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reminded me of a recent case involving a young person who has Asperger's syndrome whose social worker had gone off on long-term sick leave and not been replaced. I intervened, and another social worker was appointed. I had cause to speak to the new social worker, who had a specialism in disability. When I asked, "What do you know about Asperger's syndrome?" she looked me in the eye and said, "I'll be quite honest, absolutely nothing." She knew about other disabilities, but not AS, so I handed her a copy of the Adjournment debate

235WH
introduced by the hon. Lady, because it set out so well not only the symptoms but the difficulties faced by young people with AS.
I pay tribute to the tremendous work by the National Autistic Society. Its interrelationship with the work being done in Westminster has been vital to moving the agenda on. Members of Parliament, professionals, and—to a degree—the public are now more aware of the condition of autism, but awareness must be further raised, so this year is important.
Many statistics and much information about autism have been provided by the previous three speakers, and I fully endorse everything that they said. I decided that from the outset I would concentrate on the specific disability of Asperger's syndrome. AS often baffles parents, carers, professionals and colleagues—if the individual is lucky enough to be in work—more than other disabilities on the autistic spectrum because it is high functioning autism. Many people with AS have qualifications and good language skills, so without spending some time with them and going beneath the surface, it is not necessarily possible to pick up the fact that there is a problem or disability. It is so easy to assume that such individuals are functioning, but so wrong to do so.
The behaviour of people with AS is characterised by huge difficulties with social interaction and by rigid thought patterns. They find it immensely hard to read social cues and they display obsessive behaviour. When they reach adult life, they have tremendous difficulty integrating. Life is much harder as an adult: as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, a young person or child is allowed certain quirks or oddities, but allowances or tolerance for such behaviour disappear for adults. People with AS have great difficulty in holding down a job: as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, only 12 per cent. are in full-time employment and almost 25 per cent. of adults with AS do nothing at all. They are often housebound because they do not possess the confidence or social skills to go out, make contacts, have friendships and establish emotional relationships
In effect, AS puts individuals betwixt and between because they display no apparent physical difficulties and are coherent on the surface. The intolerance of other adults towards adults with AS is hurtful to those with the condition. They are often ridiculed, shunned and bullied. Life is cruel to them. Their intelligence, which is often average or above average, enables them to compare themselves with their siblings and peer group more effectively than other young people with autism. They know that they are unable to achieve the rites of passage of their peers and siblings, and they can predict what life holds in store for them with a fair degree of certainty. They know that they will be lonely, that they will not establish friendships, and that they will not be able to form a long-lasting relationship or marry
It is hardly surprising that such people have low self-esteem, and that they are often clinically depressed and have mental health problems. It is also unsurprising that about 8 per cent. of this group commit suicide. I would be interested to know whether Government statistics state how many suicides are committed by young people with AS. I suspect that the number is high.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady will recall that I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon.
236WH
Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to examine that question in my Adjournment debate on Asperger's syndrome. I hope that the Department of Health will consider it. A suicide or attempted suicide rate of 8 per cent. among that group is unacceptable. As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know well, many such incidents are preventable.
Liz Blackman: I agree. That harks back to my point that the clarity of thought of young people with AS and the way in which they are able clearly to assess their life chances drive them to such a desperate state.
Such people have the right to have their needs assessed by local authorities, but only 38 per cent. receive a community care assessment, only 16 per cent. are offered one as of right—the rest must fight to get one—and only 50 per cent. receive appropriate services. For young people with Asperger's syndrome, a key stage of life comes at the age of 18, marking the transition from adolescence to adulthood. However, only slightly more than half had a transition plan in place at that stage, and 65 per cent. of adults had no community care plan. Parents are confused and do not know which statutory service is responsible—indeed, the responsibility often falls between agencies, and because no lead agency is identified, people constantly fall into the gap between mental health and learning disability services.
The Government have made significant progress in their work for people with autism and Asperger syndrome. The White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" does not preclude those with AS from benefiting from such services if that is the best way to meet their needs. Prominent in the guidance is the fact that young people with AS may require an assessment of their social functioning to establish their level of need. That principle is sound, but everything is dependent on practice
I would like to explore the statistic that only 12 per cent. of young autists are in work. Attention must be and is beginning to be paid to access opportunities for employment and to continuous support for young people in employment. Local authorities have just produced the first of three annual investment plans on welfare to work for disabled people, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
I dealt recently with two cases involving young people with Asperger's syndrome. They came under the remit of the Employment Service disability team and the Interwork scheme. One should be entering the scheme in the next few days, albeit after a long haul. The other is currently in the scheme, but problems have developed and that young person cannot contact the Remploy Interwork job coach. He is depressed about certain events at work, but his job coach is inaccessible. I am sure that the scheme works well for many young people, but it must work well for them all. The case illustrates the fact that greater rigour is needed in the systems to support those young people
I acknowledge that there is good practice on the ground, but I smiled when other hon. Members used the same words—"patchy" and "battling"—as I had written when preparing my speech. Such words are typical of the cases that Members of Parliament deal

237WH
with. Without a coherent strategy, I am not convinced that people with autism and Asperger's will get appropriate services. The key is Government guidance to local authorities, health authorities and other statutory bodies to clear up the confusion surrounding the appropriate support services and their responsibilities. People need unified support packages, but those are not currently being assembled consistently.
Life can be better for those young people when, rather than the current squabbling, there is adequate awareness, good training, unified support packages, clear lines of responsibility for funding and action and an identifiable gateway to services. Many parents do not know where to start and there must be a clear gateway of access. There is an absolute need for a transition plan from adolescence to adulthood, when continuous support is needed. The key is resources and the rigorous monitoring of the system, so that we know where it works, where there is good practice and where there are gaps.
Every young person with AS whom I have met has a great deal to give to their local community and to society. Their talents are being wasted and they are being consigned to loneliness and despair. That cannot and should not be tolerated. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet said, autistic awareness being so high on the agenda this year gives us a golden opportunity to make progress on the issues raised in this debate.
11.52 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I did not intend to speak, but I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing the debate and to recount my experience of autism.
One learns a great deal when one becomes a Member of Parliament—that is what is great about the job. I was a teacher before I became an MP. When I started teaching in 1979, one lad in my class was described as autistic. Fortunately, he had full-time support in the class, but I had little opportunity to speak to his assistant and little knowledge of the condition, as I was given no background information about it. It was not until two or three years ago when I became a parliamentary candidate and constituents came to see me that I began to understand what autism is. That was 18 years after spending seven or eight years as a teacher and many more in the education profession. That is a frightening deficit—I hope that it is not so bad for teachers now. In retrospect, I realise how gaping was the void of my knowledge of the condition.
I learned more about the condition because people came to me for help. I pay tribute to Claire Franklin: she works tirelessly not only for her own child, but for others by attending special educational needs tribunals on their behalf, although she is less able to do so now because she fears the way in which the LEA will treat her child as a consequence. That is frightening. Jimmy Spence, who was a councillor on the Isle of Wight, first raised the issue with me. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who visited the island two or three years ago and met a large group of people, mainly mothers with children who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder.
238WH
My great interest is education, so I shall confine my remarks to how we can treat children better in the education system. I will also lean heavily on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who pointed to the need for a single gateway. As a former teacher and someone who has worked for an LEA in London, I see a great problem with the special educational needs legislation. The education service is required to take action, but other services "may" do so—"may" is a word that appears all too frequently in the legislation.
What goes on in the classroom and the school is only a small part of the education that the child needs. Especially in the case of a child who suffers from an autism spectrum disorder, it is no good to concentrate only on what goes on in the classroom. All too often, the SEN statement sets out only what the LEA must provide in the classroom and the school. It may refer to what the health authority or the social services authority do, but the LEA has no obligation to provide those services. The statement seldom provides for what goes on before and after school, or even on the way to school, and it almost certainly will not refer to the child's needs in the holidays, let alone to the needs of parents or of siblings, who often come second to the child with the greatest need.
I have a suggestion: in respect of SEN statements, the education service should take a leading role and accept the responsibility for meeting the financial needs of a child with an autistic spectrum disorder, whether that provision is made through education, the health service or social services. If a child needs language support, it is no good the health service saying —as happens all too Frequently—that it does not have the money and cannot provide the service. That would not be acceptable for the education service, and should not be acceptable for the health service. If parents need social services support in the holidays to provide respite care, or care for their other children, it should not be acceptable for the social services authority to say that it cannot afford that, any more than such an explanation is acceptable for the education authority. I hope that that single suggestion gives the Minister food for thought.
11.58 am
Paul Holmes: The debate has been considered and issues relating to autism have been carefully analysed. The hon. Members for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made eloquent cases and gave moving personal examples from their experience of people with autism.
Autism is a condition that has been fully recognised and brought to the attention of professionals and politicians only in recent years. That is due to the efforts of parents and families of those with autism, and they deserve praise. Those families and self-help groups have much in common with those who are fighting to raise awareness of other issues such as attention deficit disorder or endometriosis, which have not had medical and professional recognition until recently.
Before the election in June, I spent 22 years as a secondary school teacher, when I gradually became aware of the condition of autism. I taught several

239WH
children with autistic syndromes in an 11–18 school, and last year I taught a girl in year 7 who had fragile X syndrome. My experience mirrors the research findings of the groups involved in raising awareness of autism: according to them, 70 per cent. of teachers have taught children with autism. During my career, I taught four who had clear diagnoses of autism and several others whose autism was suspected but whose parents were struggling to prove it.
The research shows that during teacher training only 5 per cent. of teachers have been taught how to recognise and deal with the syndrome—when I trained, 22 years ago, I received no special needs education training—and that a further 5 per cent. have been on a training day linked to autism at some point in their careers. I was one of the 90 per cent. who did not receive any basic training in autism awareness. The teaching profession needs to address that issue. We did receive training from the special needs department, which circulated information when children with the syndrome arrived, but that is no substitute for proper training.
Dr. Ladyman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful that he raises the question of teacher awareness. The National Autistic Society documented the story of a little girl with an autistic spectrum disorder who was disruptive during literacy hours when the children sat in a circle. An autistic-aware teacher, who had received training, realised that putting a coloured carpet tile in the same place each day for the girl to sit on was all that was needed to solve the problem, which went away.
Paul Holmes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that example. I taught a child who was regarded as "a problem child" because of his behaviour. He was very intelligent, but his behaviour was getting in the way of his education and that of his class. After three years, it was recognised that he might be autistic. As a result of that awareness and subsequent staff training, he completed his A-levels successfully and went on to university.
Increasing early awareness by screening at nursery school would make a huge difference to children's life experience. Integration in mainstream schools can work, as it does in so many areas of special educational needs. One eloquent example of that was featured in the question and answer session on The Times website on 4 December. A family posted this statement:
"My daughter, Beatrice, is timid, obsessional and falls very clearly within the autistic spectrum. She has been educated at our local primary and secondary school with the full-time support of an LSA. Despite initial reluctance from some members of staff, she integrated very well and took part as fully as she could in school activities. The other children became aware of how to relate to someone whose social interaction was different from theirs and gradually relished the responsibility that this brought. The staff appreciated that teaching styles could be adjusted in a way that was beneficial to the rest of the class … I strongly believe that this approach is what charity is all about. Far too often people feel genuinely that all they need to do is to sign a cheque or put their hands in their pockets and that will be enough. It is not.
Autistic people need their different behaviours to be recognised so that they are not left in complete isolation. This requires a willingness to re-evaluate attitudes and adopt a positive approach to those who do not conform to normal social codes. If The Times Christmas Appeal can get this message across I am sure autistic families will be extremely grateful."
240WH
Working and learning alongside people who are "different" is rewarding for both adults and children. Integration can work, but it carries a bill. That example involved a full-time learning support assistant, and a cost was attached to that.
In the new year and beyond, we must raise awareness of autism and deal with the funding of relevant professionals, the educational process and support in adult life. We also need more research into the causes of autism, which remain uncertain. Recently, controversy has raged over a potential link with measles, mumps, rubella vaccination. The Government, working with the medical profession, should fund further research into the causes. Important research is due to be published later this year. We need effective screening of young children even before they start formal schooling. Pilot schemes have provided good examples: CHAT, the checklist for autism in toddlers, is an excellent guide. Good practice should be adopted nationally. We need a clear diagnostic definition of the symptoms of autism so that people can recognise it. It is often a long time before autism is recognised, and parents often have to battle to convince health and educational professionals that autism is indeed the problem.
The Centre for Social and Communication Disorders piloted the diagnostic one-stop shop, which has been shown to work. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the pilot justifies rolling the scheme out across the country. What measures will the Government undertake as a result of increased awareness of autism? Funding remains important, and ring-fenced funding has been proposed to ensure that the money is not lost in the wider morass of social services funding.
12.6 pm
Tim Loughton: This has been an excellent debate in which we have heard many well-informed contributions from people with experience and pedigree. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing this timely debate at the beginning of the year. Autism is topical for the wrong reasons—the recent publicity about the MMR vaccination has sidelined the real problems of autism, whatever its causes.
I am particularly interested in this subject in my roles as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on health and vice-chairman of the all-party group on autism. I join the general love-in by paying tribute to the group's chairman, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who showed such effort and determination in setting the group up. He has achieved much in promoting understanding of autism. I also congratulate the National Autistic Society, which has distributed little ribbons today, albeit not yet to me. In its 40th year, I congratulate the society on promoting awareness of autism, establishing educational centres and providing support to families and local authorities, setting up help lines, producing literature, training and encouraging research. It provides a huge amount of help.
In common with other hon. Members, I became more aware of autism and Asperger's when desperate cases came to light at my constituency surgery. I realised that the problem was more prevalent than I had believed. It is estimated that every constituency in England has an

241WH
average of 848 people with an autism spectrum disorder. Autism affects perhaps 500,000 families in this country at a cost of more than £1 billion. It remains too little understood, though the position is improving.
Autism still suffers from the "naughty child on the bus" syndrome. Unlike a child who cannot walk, for example, a child with autism may have no physical signs of any disability. Autistic children often play up, as ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but the problem is often dismissed as mothers being unable to keep their children under control. We must educate people that there is more to autism. We must understand that is it not just bad behaviour simply because we cannot see a physical disability.
The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned The Times Christmas appeal. The articles were exceedingly helpful, in that they gave real-life examples of what it means to look after an autistic child growing into adulthood. It is difficult to determine whether the prevalence of autism is increasing or whether diagnosis is improving, but it is clear that early diagnosis is vital and that long-term pathways for treatment and care must be identified at an early stage. Only then can we provide the appropriate support that people desperately need and ensure that problems are noticed before they worsen.
We heard the statistics about lifetime extra costs and emotional strain on families. Joined-up provision is the vital key. PACE refers to the responsibility vacuum between the resources required and what is on offer from local education and health authorities. A common constituency problem we encounter is that of parents of autistic children who have no clear gateways—as the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) said, they do not know to whom they should go. The polite term is "ambiguity around responsibility", but the real term is buck passing.
Often, there is a vicious triangle. How many times have we dealt with the local education authority first, then the local council's social services department and, finally, the primary care trust within the national health service? The need might be for speech therapists, social workers, or extra support in the classroom. It is so difficult to obtain one third of the funding from each of three bodies; in some cases, it requires a great deal of work, and the effort, time and money wasted in getting to that point is intolerable. That is the battle—the word on everyone's lips—in which we politicians have to engage.
Disaster can result if such efforts are not successful: the police may become involved, or mental health problems may arise. I know one mother who had her autistic son arrested for stealing the family car, simply to jolt the local authority into providing her with the help that she desperately needed. Children or adults with extreme cases of Asperger's may be sectioned under the Mental Health Acts or given inappropriate medication, which may trigger a downward spiral. The hon. Member for Ilford, North gave us the statistics: people with autism disorders are five times more likely to commit suicide, one in 30 people with autism has felt suicidal, and one third of autistic adults suffer from depression.
242WH
Autism awareness year is important. A whole year is a good step up from the autism awareness week of previous years. Many events are planned. I pay tribute to the BIBIC for taking on the campaign and acting as facilitator, as well as to the Corea family—I am not sure how many times the hon. Lady mentioned her constituents—for the great determination that they have shown on behalf of their child. I am sure that the year will be successful and will bring enormous benefits for many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of families who have children with autistic disorders.
We parliamentarians can also take some credit, not only for the work of the all-party group, but for the 153 MPs who signed the early-day motion and for the support that we have had in the House of Lords. With the NAS and the 250 organisations that have added their support to autism awareness year, we can take some credit for raising the profile of the issue. Much else is happening besides the King's Fund conference on 14 February. The success of the year will be judged not by the number of people who turn up at individual events, but by its legacy of awareness among professionals and the public at large. That is what is important.
We must concentrate on five areas. The first is assessing the problem's extent, because we do not have up-to-date prevalence figures. There are too many differentials between counties'—let alone countries'—experiences, perhaps owing to different expertise and provision in different counties and their ability to assess the scale of the problem. We must have much better data and better ways of collecting and assessing data. There are different impacts at different ages in a child's development.
Secondly, we need to do more research into causes and to have a greater public awareness campaign. As the hon. Member for Ilford, North said, we need to dispel the myths. Unique among her colleagues, the Minister has been exceedingly wise and brave in indicating what she was prepared to do in terms of ensuring that her children have the MMR vaccination. Vaccination in parts of the country is down to 72 per cent., which may have an enormous impact. Measles is a killer. I have a 41-year-old constituent who suffered severe brain damage as a result of contracting measles at an early age. We need to educate the public much more, not merely flag up a possible link between autism and MMR. There is much more to it.
Thirdly, we need to do much better on early diagnosis. The average age for diagnosis of autism is six, four years after most parents seek help. We must treat early and provide suitable support to avoid regression into severe autistic behaviour. That is not necessarily difficult. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) mentioned the CHAT technique, developed at Cambridge university, which should be more extensively available.
Who takes the lead in spotting the signs of autism early? That is the problem. Is it the health visitor, the GP, other health or education officials or the specialist teacher when the child starts nursery or school? Often a family friend who knows a little about the subject notices something. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton: for goodness' sake, listen to parents—they know quite a lot, however emotional they may be when they turn up at a

243WH
GP's surgery. In addition, it would be much more helpful if diagnosis were regarded as a signpost, not a label.
Fourthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) illustrated so clearly from his experience, there should be much better support at school, both in the classroom and on the way to and from it. The problem is that autism is a broad spectrum with a high diversity of need. Inadequate statements are often given, which lead to long wrangles through tribunals. Learning difficulty tags often apply only to people with IQs of less than 70, but we have heard that many people with Asperger's have higher and often above average intelligence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton says, autism is an iceberg condition: at least two thirds is below the surface. We must tackle the enormous divergence in the experiences of LEAs and the availability of specialist teachers, particularly specialist speech therapists. We need many more special autism awareness units in mainstream schools, and we must strengthen the SEN code of practice.
Finally, we must provide support for the extended families and carers who deal with people with autism and who face the enormous emotional impact of doing so. The hon. Member for South Thanet talked about marriage breakdown; I have seen in my constituency how common that is, because of all the pressures. Furthermore, the economic consequences are severe. It is much more difficult to diagnose autism and Asperger's in adults than in children, because there are fewer contexts in which identification might occur, but only after diagnosis can suitable treatment be made available.
It is vital to support parents. The Sussex Autistic Society, with which I do some work, has get-togethers for parents and professionals. The children can be taken off their hands and entertained in specialist light and sound rooms, while the adults share their experiences. Training should be available for parents, and respite care is essential to give them a break from the constant pressure. We do not value carers enough, but we should make their job as easy as possible because they take so much of the burden off the state.
Today's debate and the work that will be done throughout the year are important to getting the message across to the public and increasing awareness of autism; only then will we be able to secure a co-ordinated approach. We must increase awareness among health and education officials and social services, and reflect the issue in employment policies. We need to reveal much more of the iceberg and to cut down the number of shopping bag ladies. Only after that has been done will we be able to have a debate that does not feature words such as "battling" and "patchy". The campaign has got off to an excellent start and I wish it well.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing a debate on this important issue in autism awareness year, and on voicing her constituents' concerns so powerfully. We have heard some passionate
244WH
speeches from Members on both sides of the Chamber. They have extensive experience and expertise and they are right to feel very strongly about the issue. I also pay tribute to the all-party group: we often underestimate the influence and achievements of such groups. The all-party group on breast cancer, for example, has done a great deal to raise awareness of that condition.
As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, autism has, in effect, been mainstreamed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we need to do the same throughout society. Too little is known about autism, not only in society in general but among professionals and experts. During this debate, many important points have been made extremely well, and they should be followed up. The key themes that have emerged are the need for more and better research; improved diagnosis and early intervention; improved medical and professional recognition and understanding of autism; better partnership working among the various agencies that provide support for those with autism and their families; ways to tackle the patchiness of services; better support for and greater involvement of parents; and recognition of the individual needs of those with autism and their families.
It is important that we acknowledge that autism is a complex condition that affects not only the individuals with the condition, but their families, siblings, parents, carers, teachers and school mates. It is not a simple problem to which there are simple solutions. The Government warmly welcome autism awareness year. I pay tribute to the efforts of the Corea family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, in getting it under way. I also pay tribute to the extensive work done for many years by the National Autistic Society in raising awareness and expertise.
Progress is already being made in respect of many of the themes that have been identified, such as improved multi-agency working, improved partnerships and research, and increased emphasis on early diagnosis. I shall mention a few of the measures that are already contributing to improving the situation of those with autism and their families, and highlight some of the next steps and key opportunities arising from autism awareness year, especially the development of the national service framework for children. In responding to some of the points raised by hon. Members, I shall point out the steps that are already being taken and the areas in which we need to go further.
Research was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), among others. It is clear that we need to know more about the causes and prevalence of autism. That is why last year the Government asked the Medical Research Council to undertake a major and detailed review of current knowledge about autism, and to suggest possible areas of further research. NAS and PACE were involved in that work and I thank them for their contribution.
The MRC published the report of its detailed review on 13 December last year. It provides a clear, authoritative picture of the latest state of scientific research, and reflects acceptance of the fact that autism is not as rare as was previously thought, although it notes that the apparent increase in the prevalence of autism is likely to have resulted from better diagnosis and clearer definition, as well as from increased

245WH
awareness. The report suggests that many factors play a role in causing autism, and that the strongest evidence to date is that there is a major genetic component. In line with other independent expert reviews, the MRC group confirmed that the evidence does not support a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism.
The fact that the MRC carried out the review considerably strengthens the case for fresh autism research, as does establishing a highlighting notice relating to autism and mapping out the key areas for the most fruitful research. I hope that strong research proposals will emerge in many of the areas that the MRC identified.
Many hon. Members concentrated on services for those with autism. An important first step is diagnosis. We heard about the need for one-stop shops and a single gateway to improve diagnosis and early intervention, and that must be the way forward. We must make it much easier for parents to navigate an often complex network of consultations surrounding diagnosis. In many areas that is done successfully, and one of the challenges is to ensure that best practice in those areas is adopted across the board.
We are taking a close interest in an independent initiative, the national initiative on autism, which is chaired by Professor Ann Le Couteur and is investigating screening, diagnosis and early intervention. It is expected to report this year and we will take its conclusions extremely seriously. The Department of Health commissioned Tony Holland to produce a report on Asperger's syndrome. That report includes recommendations on professional groups increasing their awareness, the need for health and social services to work together, and the need for population-based studies in adults and children to establish prevalence. Work is under way to implement "Valuing People" and to provide services for people with a learning disability, concentrating on improving co-ordination between agencies to supply the focused and individual services that people with learning disabilities, including autism, may need.
246WH
Improvements are taking place in education. The revised SEN code of practice has been in place since 1 January, and the guidance on assessing the different areas of children's SEN specifically highlights autistic spectrum disorders. In 2002, the Department for Education and Skills autism working group will publish its good practice guidance, which will be important to raising awareness across education and improving best practice. The quality protects programme is also making a contribution.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?
Yvette Cooper: I am short of time, so I cannot.
The area that I want to focus on in the short time that I have left—I apologise for rushing through the issues—is the national service framework for children, which is just beginning its work and will consider not only health, but partnerships between health and social services and between health and education.
The framework will deal with every aspect of children's health; it will not be able to single out every condition and disease for detailed attention. However, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and I have decided that autism is particularly important and we want to use it as an example of the way in which services should be provided. We want to make autism an exemplar under the national service framework, so that when the framework is concluded people will be able to see how services should be provided—usually through partnerships and covering many of the aspects that we have discussed today, including early diagnosis—to provide the best quality services for those with autism.
I strongly urge hon. Members with an interest in this issue to become involved in the debate on the national service framework for children. I have a strong regard for the national service framework because it is having a powerful impact on improving services and setting national standards throughout the NHS. It provides a great opportunity for those with an interest in autism.
I apologise for not being able to cover many of the matters raised, including issues relating to adulthood.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Time is up. We must move on to the next debate.

Standard Spending Assessment (Somerset)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the standard spending assessment for Somerset. This seems to be a dreary ritual that we must go through each year. I seem to have been making precisely the same arguments for more than 17 years and I know that the Minister shares my background in local government, so he has probably been making the same arguments, on both sides of the fence, for an equal period. The sad fact is that, until the apportionment of local government finance is right, or at least approximately right, we must continue to make the case for the areas that we represent, and I certainly make no apology for speaking for Somerset.
It is good to see in the Chamber a full house of my colleagues who represent Somerset constituencies: my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). I hope that our arguments are the same, because we are speaking for the communities that we represent.
I am familiar with the recitals that we must make on these occasions, and I shall not dwell on the structural problems with the present formula, because we are all familiar with them. Somerset is a rural county in the south-west and its local authority shares with many others the difficulty that additional costs in the county are not properly met by the formula—for example, the cost of providing a large number of small schools in a rural county, the cost of transport and the cost of providing for a dispersed population. We have more minor roads per person in the county than almost any other authority.
As the Minister and I are familiar with local government, let us not dwell on the more formulaic versions of this debate. I assure him that I am not about to wave shrouds or bleeding stumps at him, and I ask him to do me the favour of not insulting the intelligence of Somerset people by saying that everything in the formula is perfect and that Somerset has a good deal. We all know that that is not so.
I want to raise key matters, including social services, education, the Somerset levels and the problem of flooding and the cost of flood defence. I shall then refer briefly to district councils and the effect of council tax on those living in the county.
I start with social services, which cause enormous concern in Somerset. I was lucky to secure an Adjournment debate on 16 October 2001 when I drew attention to what is reasonably described as a crisis in the provision of long-term care in the county. I know that Somerset is not alone in experiencing that problem, but I also know that it is a matter of considerable concern to the director of social services and his staff and to many people who have relatives in long-term care or who require those services themselves. Care homes throughout the county have been closed, with devastating effects on people. Many businesses that provide care home facilities are precarious to the point of going under and there are real difficulties in providing domiciliary care to the standard required because of recruitment problems.
248WH
During my Adjournment debate, I received assurances from Ministers that were largely couched in the view that significant extra money was to be provided by the Government to help relieve what was recognised to be a serious situation for social services. They implied that it would make a significant difference to Somerset, which is, according to reputation and history, one of the best social services authorities. Independent assessments from the inspectorate and the Audit Commission have proved that the care provided by Somerset is of a high order; it was also one of the pioneers of effective co-operation between health authorities and the private sector.
The promise of cash has turned out to be illusory. There has been an increase of an extra £3 million in the base budget, but against that an almost equivalent loss has occurred—some £2.6 million—in the form of specific grants.
I shall draw the Minister's attention to three main points. The first concerns what are termed preserved rights, which relate to the income support that was available to residents before 1993 and is supposed to have been provided for in the settlement. The difficulty is that the figure has been calculated on the basis of the case load in December 2000 and multiplied by a factor based on the iniquitous area cost adjustment. That has resulted in a substantial shortfall between what is provided for by the formula and what is needed for dealing with real people in real communities who need real help. A figure need not be plucked out of the air because we have evidence, from information provided by the Benefits Agency, of how many people should receive the preserved rights money. The agency's figures, which are up to date and genuine, tell us that Somerset's allocation should be £6.3 million. However, under the formula that the Government have chosen to use, the figure is £5.5 million, which creates a shortfall of £800,000.
The second issue relates to residential allowances, which is the money that should be transferred to the county council to meet the cost of care packages when residential care allowances stop at the end of the financial year. In a 2001 paper from the Department of Health, the Government state that, if the formula is based on equity, Somerset should receive £1.29 million to meet the costs of that new responsibility. Instead, however, the Govt have used a formula based on the extraordinary machinations of the SSA and the area cost adjustment, which means that Somerset will be allocated only £850,000, creating a shortfall of £440,000. Perhaps the reason for the shortfall is that Somerset makes heavy use of independent sector placements. For heaven's sake, that is what the Government asked local authorities to do. It is part of the great partnership between the public and private sectors that the Government advocate. Somerset puts that policy into action and does what the Government want it to do even before they have thought of it, but it is penalised as a result, which cannot be right.
Promoting independence grants are the third element within social services. Recurrent expenditure should be continued because of winter pressures and because partnership and prevention grants are being put together. It has, however, been reduced for the inelegantly named winter PIGs—promoting independence grants for winter months—and the result

249WH
is a shortfall of £1.4 million. The money that the Government claim to provide for social services with one hand is being taken away with the other, to the detriment of social services in Somerset and the dismay of people who rely on those services. The big question is why the Government do not use the actual cost of services for their calculation. Given that the services are available and that they are provided from their sources, why are they not used in the formulation?
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is putting the case for Somerset very well, and I strongly support his view that Somerset is badly treated in several respects. The Government have admitted that in past years, and we are looking for action. Does he agree that our case would be strengthened if we were to ensure that we were economical in our expenditure on functions such as the procurement of purchasing, which was recently the subject of an Audit Commission report, and on regional bodies and assemblies that have little public support and can absorb too much public money, which ought to be channelled into the areas that he is ably illuminating?
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is important that the county council prioritises the areas in which it spends its money, and that it maintains the reputation that it has always had for frugality and care with public finances. The county council will make its own decisions about how to spend its money, and it is wrong for us to try to pre-empt those decisions. Nevertheless, it is essential that the county council retains its position, which it has held over many years and under varying administrations, of prioritising those areas that are most important to people in the county.
The area that has consumed the majority of funds available to Somerset over many years—way beyond the SSA allocation—is education, which brings us to a fundamental difference of opinion with the Government. I cannot accept, and I suspect that other hon. Members cannot accept, that the SSA per pupil in Somerset is so far out of kilter with that elsewhere in the country.
Mr. David Laws: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence on this issue and his success in securing today's debate. Does he recall that at the beginning of the previous Parliament he received an acknowledgement from an Education Minister that Somerset has too low an SSA, which is unjustifiable? Will he press the Minister on the need to address that issue in the upcoming review of the education SSA so that the deficit in Somerset as set against the national average of about £200 per primary and secondary pupil can be dealt with as soon as possible?
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister to which he referred, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), is now prominent in the education field because she is the current Secretary of State for Education and Skills. In the previous Parliament what was almost a repertory company assembled for Adjournment debates on the
250WH
imbalance in the SSA, in which she admitted that the Government had got the education SSA for Somerset wrong. That was also recognised by the previous Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who used to talk about the Somerset factor, which was the factor of unfairness in the formula.
My children attend schools in Frome which receive £1,500 per year per child less than children in a leafy London borough such as Hillingdon. I am not obsessed with Hillingdon, but it is the borough in which the Prime Minister sends his children to school. There is a differential that cannot be papered over by reference to the extra costs of education because the SSA does not take into account the unit costs of a rural county. The result is a distorting effect on the other services that the council provides. Although the council rightly sees education as a priority and is prepared to spend massively over SSA provision, that squeezes all the other services that people expect the council to provide.
I must now be brief on my other points, as I want to leave the Minister time to reply.
Everyone knows about the issues of flood defence in Somerset. Half my constituency is under water during the winter months; the same applies to the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. It is a massive problem. Somerset is dealing effectively with the problem this year, and the flood defence committee has put up its precept by 30 per cent. to carry out some of the work that the Government want. However, the Government have not given a single extra penny this year to help with those additional costs of £1.5 million.
Mr. Adrian Flook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing the debate.
It is not even a question of the Government providing the same amount as last year; they have given less money. Will the hon. Gentleman join us in asking the Government for at least matching revenues to put towards flood defence?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right, and if we want to take the issue seriously—it is becoming more serious as the years pass—we need the Government to agree that, if the defences are being put in place this year, the money should come from the Government this year, not some years in the future. It is no good for them to run away from the issue.
Most of my comments have concerned the county council, because it controls the majority of the council tax and expenditure in the county, but my next point concerns South Somerset district council. It made the valuable point to me that, although its settlement looks good on paper, it is not. It looks as if it has extra money, and it should have received additional money from the housing transfer in a Government grant. However, the capping procedure brought in by the Government means that the good citizens of south Somerset will not benefit from that; indeed, they will be put in a worse position, which is wrong.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: I shall give way briefly and for the last time.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I believe that the whole of Somerset can be included in this point. The situation with foot and mouth on Exmoor gave rise to the same problem. The council spent £250,000, but did not receive any help from the Government. That is exactly the same situation as in south Somerset.
Mr. Heath: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not know the situation in west Somerset, but I am sure that we would hear exactly the same points from people in Mendip, Sedgemore and Taunton Deane. There is no time to list every problem.
What is the result? I fear that we will have substantial increases in council tax again this year, not because Somerset or any district council, whatever political party controls it, has been profligate in its use of funds, but because of Government policy. That will be replicated in county and district councils throughout the south-west peninsula, and it is likely that the norm for south-west counties will be a council tax increase that goes into double figures. The Government will downplay the situation and say that the increases are likely to be only 5 or 6 per cent., or whatever figure they come up with. They try the same trick every year and then say that the councils must have overspent. We know the facts, and it will be an unsupportable increase. The impact on individuals will be disastrous, as they will have to find extra funds, often out of fixed incomes, without receiving any benefit: they get worse rather than better services, which cannot be right. I do not have time to go into the iniquities of the uniform business rate, but I could speak for another half hour about its effect on businesses in the county.
South-west authorities are treated badly by the current formula. The SSA per capita in the south-west is £876. It is £1,265 in London, £1,043 in the north-east, and £1,027 in the north-west. The England average is £995. Some time, some Government will have to get this right for the west country, because we are losing patience with a system that delivers so badly for our region and provides us with so little benefit. There are many factors—partly the SSA formula, which is to be reviewed next year, and partly the iniquitous area cost adjustment, which is unsupportable to anybody other than those who receive it, who obviously would like it to be maintained. The Government cannot constantly retreat behind the need for consensus with local authorities. They will not achieve it, as the winners will never give up what they have, and the losers will always want more.
I fervently wish that the Minister would provide some answers on the future design of local government finance and say how the effects that I have described can be mitigated. Nothing would please me more than never to have such a debate again, because I am bored stiff producing a litany of despair from Somerset and the west country each year about the way the area is treated by consecutive Governments. That will happen only when we get a fair deal from the Government, and I believe that we are a long way from that.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I join the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in bemoaning the fact that we do not have sufficient time adequately to address the detail of the issues that he has raised.
252WH
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on this important issue. He told me that he would not go into the arcane details and the highways and byways of the SSA system, and I shall attempt not to do so. He outlined how the SSA system relates to local authorities and how it decides grant outcomes and produces, over time, problems for those local authorities. That applies not only to Somerset but to local government more widely. I shall speak about the issue generally, although I shall attempt to address the hon. Gentleman's points about Somerset, too.
Next year's finance settlement is, by any measure, good for local government. It demonstrates our continued commitment to investing in local government. The settlement should in general allow councils to improve their services while keeping to reasonable increases in council tax. I underline what I said about the SSA system. Despite the considerable investment that we have provided each year since taking office, some authorities still face pressures. I acknowledge that, and understand where those pressures come from and how they impact on local authorities. We shall consider those matters with local government as we consider the spending plans for 2003–04 onwards in the context of the upcoming spending review.
We were able to increase provision for local government in the spending review 2000. Next year's proposed settlement benefits from the plans laid at that time. The proposals currently under consultation provide that Government grants and business rates support will be £47.3 billion in the next financial year. That is an increase of £3.3 billion, or 7.4 per cent.
Overall spending on education will rise by £2.1 billion, or 8.7 per cent. Personal social services will increase by £684 million or 6.5 per cent. Those figures relate to the national settlement. The hon. Gentleman will take limited comfort from that overall statement, although it was important to make it to answer some of his points about Somerset.
If we consider the comparative figures, we can see that Somerset will receive a good settlement this year. The council has benefited from the extra investment that we have made in local government. For the four years before 1998–99, Somerset received an increase in SSA of only 2.1 per cent. each year. Since then, the county has received an average increase of 5 per cent. Under our proposals for next year, Somerset will get a general grant increase of 6.1 per cent., or £14 million, which is more than three times the rate of inflation. That compares favourably with a number of other local authorities in England.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points about circumstances in Somerset which relate to the operation of the standard spending assessment, including social services expenditure. The Government well understand the pressures on social services authorities, especially in relation to care packages and long-term care for people in their homes or in residential care establishments. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that yesterday the Government announced the figures for the so-called bed-blocking initiative, which will provide £726,000 for Somerset for the next year and at least that amount for the year after that. It will go a considerable way to assist Somerset with high-maintenance care packages for people in care homes.

253WH
The wider issue in respect of care homes, especially in southern England, is the continuing provision of such homes, the cost of packages and property, and the temptation that some care homes face to cash up when substantial amounts of money come their way for the land on which they stand. The resulting distortion in the number of places available and the question of how to deal with that problem in the long term are matters of great concern which the Government understand.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the allocation of residential allowance by SSA, rather than by past patterns of expenditure. The residential allowance transfer is for new cases, that is, for people placed in care after 1 April 2002. The SSA calculation on the basis of need is right, but it is true that past patterns penalised councils that chose to use their own homes for those arrangements, and we wanted to get rid of that unfairness.
I am aware of the strength of feeling about the education funding formula for Somerset. I will not go into details about what has been provided for education funding; the figures show that Somerset children will get a substantial increase in the amount made available for their education in the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman raised deeper questions about how the SSA formula works in relation to education, social services and other functions and I shall say a few words about it in the brief time available. The Government are committed to a fundamental reform of the SSA formula. As I have a background in local government, I recognise that a formula that attempts to achieve equity of outcome by providing an indicator for everything and a weight to that indicator on occasions, using Byzantine formulae, sometimes has the opposite effect. I was not alone among local authority leaders in thinking that I had been a good boy in a particular year only to find that the outcome of the formula showed that I had not been a good boy, and had had no apparent effect in the real world.
The SSA formula as it stands tends to penalise those authorities that had relatively low levels of expenditure in the early 1990s when it was introduced. It relates to a world that is different from the real world in respect of the costs of the indicators used. For example, the SSA formula assumes that the average band D council level is about £700, when that is increasingly drifting away from reality. A formula that allocates changes in grants according to indicators that do not relate closely to reality will inevitably produce distortions. Consequently, we are committed to making changes. I issue a challenge to local government, which I hope will discuss the changes positively. Do we want a simpler formula that is easier to understand, but which causes problems with equity, or do we want to increase equity? I suggest that we need a more simple, straightforward and understandable formula, based on reality. The Government are committed to finding such a formula.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Order. Time is up.

Drugs Trade (Afghanistan)
1 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on the drugs trade in Afghanistan, a problem that has gained in international prominence as the world has focused on that region. The debate is being held at a crucial time, given that there is a new Government in that country who seem more determined than their predecessors to take such an issue seriously.
A new drug crop is now growing in Afghanistan and international attention is focusing more than ever on that country and the problems that it faces. At present, there is a debate in the press and elsewhere about the role of the British Government in foreign affairs. The drugs problem is an international issue as well as an important domestic one, and it is impossible to distinguish between the two. Those who suggest that we should pay less attention to such issues are wrong, and we should not ignore the problem in the international context or the domestic consequences of the trade.
It has been well recorded that 90 per cent. of all heroin used in the United Kingdom comes from Afghanistan. Tragically, in the past year, more than 1,000 people have lost their lives to drug overdoses. More than 100 people lost their lives because of drugs in my city of Glasgow, and more than 70 of them lost their lives to one drug— heroin. When 70 people in one city die from heroin overdoses and 90 per cent. of the heroin in that city comes from Afghanistan, no one can tell me or the families of those who died that this is not important.
There is a financial issue, but I want to advance it as being of secondary importance in the debate. The Home Office estimates that the cost of law and order in respect of the drug problem in this country is £1.2 billion per annum. The drug has caused enormous human and financial cost. It is an enormous pull on the criminal justice system, not to mention a drain on resources in our health service. That is why, in advance of today's debate, I produced a 10-point plan that will go some way towards alleviating the problems internationally.
I want to mention my support for Iran and other nations in their border security. I do not usually support Iran. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and I have discussed Iran in other contexts and I have been a staunch opponent of much of its regime not only domestically, but internationally. However, it deserves our support on the drugs issue. I understand that 80 per cent. of all heroin seized in the world is captured by Iranian border control and security forces. We cannot expect it to carry out such action without our support, given that large amounts of the drug are bound for our communities. If we expect our communities to be protected from drugs, we must defend our front line, and that is often achieved by border controls.
We must find ways to help Afghan addicts. There is dispute about the extent of drug addiction in Afghanistan, but some estimates put it as high as one in 10 people, with specific problems among refugee populations. There is only one treatment centre in the country and the Afghan Government and population face an enormous domestic problem.

255WH
We must invest and research to find naturally growing fungi that attack the opium poppy in the fields, which would deal with the problem at source. If we are to clamp down on the supply from Afghanistan, we must ensure that it is not simply displaced and sourced to another region or nation, such as Burma or countries in that area.
I have several specific suggestions, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on those or on other matters that relate to the Government's attitude to the issue. The United Nations estimates that the Taliban had a stockpile of 300 tonnes of heroin. The almost 300,000 heroin users in the United Kingdom consume about 30 tonnes of heroin annually. Therefore, 10 years of heroin supply for the UK is sitting in the stockpiles built up by the Taliban and, no doubt, the Northern Alliance when it was in opposition.
What is the Government's attitude to that and what action is being taken? I found that difficult to ascertain as the international conflict developed and the entirely justifiable military action got under way. I demanded of the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence that the stockpiles of heroin be considered a legitimate target to be bombed and destroyed. I ask for guidance—if it is not available today then at a later date—on the status of the stockpile that the Taliban were keen to offload on the international market. Do we know where it is and its status? What action is being taken to deal with it?
What is the international community's attitude to those who previously prospered and profited from the heroin trade? I advocate that those who were involved centrally should not be allowed to hold Government office. People who continue to try to profit from the heroin should not be allowed to hold promoted posts in the new Afghan armed forces.
I am not ignorant of the role of heroin in Afghanistan's economy and the power politics of Afghanistan. However, we must end that nation's addiction to it and the reliance on it of Afghanistan's Government and warlord power brokers. Will the Minister tell us the international coalition's attitude to those whose hands are dirty with the profits of the heroin trade?
I shall now deal with tying aspects of aid to an agreed programme of reducing drug trafficking and drug production. I have heard people say that it would be heartless to impose such conditions on the Afghan population. If the scheme were handled properly, that would not be the case. We already, rightly, attach humanitarian conditions to humanitarian aid. I take a keen interest in southern Africa, and I grew up in South Africa. I support efforts to ensure that aid is tied to poverty eradication, the promotion of numeracy and literacy, the provision of primary education and clean water, health provision, and to investment in the masses rather than the elites. All those conditions are welcome. The third world and international development campaign groups who opposed them were well intentioned but wrong.
We should seek to provide enormous aid in some way. We are already committed to some aid, but more is needed, some of which should be tied to an agreed drug reduction programme, even to certain regions of Afghanistan. The less that drugs are sent to the
256WH
United Kingdom, the more aid will be sent to Afghanistan. Some aid should be unconditional and we should give generous support for redevelopment, the creation of an economy, and the building of schools that are so necessary, especially for young girls. However, I seek a way in which aid can be even more generous if drugs and the drugs trade are removed from that nation. I believe that the intention behind that initiative would be widely welcomed.
I am keen to press, and will continue to campaign, for an amnesty for opium farmers in Afghanistan, and for the international community to destroy the processed crop in Afghanistan before it can leave the country. I do not propose the methods—military activity or weapons—that I advocated during the international bombing, but suggest an agreed way with the new Afghan Government so that farmers are compensated for handing over their crops and are free from prosecution that year only. Prosecution has not been as commonplace in Afghanistan as it should have been, but I hope that under the new Government, Government agencies will take a dim view of those who grow the poppy seeds.
I hope that we use this historic opportunity and act on the proposal. It would be a one-off initiative that would not be repeated. Farmers would be compensated and free from prosecution. They would have an amnesty, but those who continued to grow and profit from the drugs trade would, hopefully, be prosecuted in future years. Some might say that that is a waste of money and that the Government have more pressing concerns and greater demands on their expenditure. However, when we consider the enormous loss of life caused by the drugs trade and the huge demand on law and order and health resources, the amnesty is a small price to pay.
There is some debate about the exact cost, which depends on how much we believe is growing in Afghanistan and how much is still stockpiled. The estimates range up to a maximum of £150 million, but a more reliable figure of £40 million is advanced. Regardless of the cost, the international coalition, with Britain at its core, should be playing a leading role in trying to ensure that farmers are compensated for the destruction of their crops.
Of course, we believe that those crops should not have been grown, and in an ideal world, those people would be prosecuted here and now. However, we live not in that world, but in one where the Taliban and the Northern Alliance have turned a blind eye and in some ways encouraged the growth of those crops. We are dealing with a world in which we can only prevent the crop from being processed and imported into our communities and into the lives of so many of our citizens by compensating the farmers and destroying the crops through an agreed programme with the Afghan Government, or under the auspices of the United Nations. It should be done in a way that would remove that enormous export market in heroin from Afghanistan. According to the Home Office, a heroin user will steal, on average, up to £20,000 a year to feed their habit, and considering that there are nearly 300,000 heroin users in this country, that would be a small price to pay. It could deal with the problem in an international context as long as the supply chain was not simply displaced to other nations.

257WH
Before 11 September, Afghanistan was regarded as an exporter of two major products: training in terror—as is all too tragically apparent—and heroin. We have rightly and properly begun to deal with the threat of terror, and it is now time that we turned with equal determination to the problem of heroin. I look forward in the coming weeks and months—but hopefully not years—to campaigning for the Government to lead the way in an amnesty and compensation scheme that will destroy a crop that has, through drug overdoses, destroyed all too many of my constituents and those of the Minister.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) for proposing this debate on combating the drugs trade in Afghanistan. This serious subject is of huge significance to the United Kingdom. Around 90 per cent. of the 20 to 30 tonnes of heroin used on our streets annually originates as opium poppy in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend succinctly and successfully outlined the devastating social and economic costs of that on the streets of our towns and cities, including those of his own constituency. He also recognised that combating the drugs trade in Afghanistan will be no easy task.
Many of the countries that produce drugs have several things in common: poverty, conflict, poor or no governance, and weak law enforcement. Afghanistan is a prime example, allowing drug production not simply to go unchallenged but to be actively encouraged. Those issues cannot be addressed overnight.
Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries. It has been host to conflict for over 20 years, governance has been weak or non-existent and the rule of law is virtually unknown. The majority of opium poppy farmers in Afghanistan are not wealthy. They grow opium poppy as part of their livelihood strategy. It is a durable crop—opium can be stored for several years—which is a desirable quality in a country where the infrastructure is so poor that perishable produce is extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive to get to market. Opium has a relatively high cash value. Most farm plots are so small that insufficient food can be grown on them to feed a farmer's family, so growing opium poppy is often the only means of survival.
Because opium is one of the few commodities in Afghanistan that has a guaranteed market, loans can be secured against a future crop. That is often the only source of credit available to the rural poor. Those factors, combined with the lack of alternative off-farm income opportunities and the existence of a large number of underemployed labourers who are available for the time-consuming task of harvesting opium, have entrenched opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan's economy.
Under the Taliban regime, opium production in Afghanistan doubled. That is no coincidence. That regime was deeply involved in the drugs trade, deriving a significant proportion of its income from it. In July 2000, Mullah Omar issued an edict banning opium poppy cultivation as un-Islamic. However, we believe
258WH
that there were other motives for the ban: an attempt to consolidate the market and increase opium prices, and international pressure. In any event it was highly effective, but surplus production in previous years led to the creation of large stockpiles of opium. We have no figures that are absolutely reliable. Perhaps as my hon. Friend has said, the stockpiles are enough to last for several years.
Those stockpiles continued to be traded, trafficked and controlled by the Taliban regime, despite the ban on cultivation. As a result, the price of opium increased tenfold, allowing the Taliban to reap the benefit. During the recent opium poppy planting season—September to December—it is probable that widespread cultivation resumed. That is the result of high opium prices, encouragement by traffickers and a lack of alternative means of income for farmers. While the Taliban regime has gone, many of the trafficking networks remain intact and the circumstances that allow the drugs trade to flourish still prevail.
The drugs trade in Afghanistan is a complex issue, and there is no simple or immediate solution. However, the installation of the new interim Administration presents us with a unique opportunity to combat the problem once and for all. The first step has already been taken. At the Bonn conference it was agreed that the interim Administration would co-operate with the international community in the fight against drugs. The issue of tackling illicit drugs features prominently in the UN-led political process for Afghanistan and is mentioned specifically in the proposed organisational structure of the future UN assistance mission in Afghanistan.
It will be essential therefore for central and regional authorities, based on the rule of law and operating under agreed good governance practices, to be fully engaged in any efforts to eradicate the drugs problem in Afghanistan. It will also be essential to continue efforts to attack traffickers. If they can be removed from the equation, or have their activities significantly disrupted in the short term, there will be less of a market for the crop currently in the ground, and less incentive for farmers to invest in the labour to harvest it.
Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party, I welcome the Minister to this important debate. May I suggest one partial solution? As he outlined, there is a strong demand not just for illegal, but for legal opium. One potential solution would be to secure legal pharmaceutical production from opium-producing sources in Afghanistan to unlink them from illegal heroin sales. Should that not also go hand in hand with efforts by the UK and other international coalition Governments to establish an effective, secure strategy of enforcement to ensure that there is movement away from the illegal trade to a legal, sustainable basis for the poor farming population in Afghanistan?
Mr. Bradshaw: I must slightly correct the hon. Gentleman. There is a legitimate demand for legal pharmaceutical opium production, but it is tiny in global terms. It is miniscule compared with the illegal trade. The legal production that takes place in other parts of the world, including India, already provides enough for legitimate medicinal needs. I am not sure that that suggestion is an answer to our problems.

259WH
In the medium and longer term, breaking the dependence of small farmers on poppy cultivation will be the key to successful drug control. Credit from traffickers secured against future poppy cultivation results in higher levels of poppy growing than would otherwise necessarily be attractive to farmers. So alternative sources of credit may be needed. It may also be necessary to tackle the accumulated poppy debt from previous years. Drug control should be integrated into long-term development programmes—diversifying rural livelihoods away from poppy cultivation.
On an official visit to Thailand just before Christmas I had the privilege to observe some of the very good work there. I flew over some of the northern area of Thailand on the border with Burma, which in the past has been a real problem for opium poppy cultivation. The cultivation there has been almost completely eradicated through an eradication programme, combined with a crop substitution programmes. I also visited a village that had previously been completely dependent on growing opium poppy and was now growing fruit and vegetables and sending them to Bangkok to be sold. Those involved were making five times more than they were making from the sale of opium poppy.
Successful crop substitution programmes are possible. As my hon. Friend knows, many parts of Afghanistan that currently grow opium poppy are highly fertile and were once successful exporters of fruit such as pomegranates. The best pomegranates in the world come from the Kandahar. There are alternatives to which we could move back.
My hon. Friend made a number of specific suggestions, and I thank him for his 10-point plan. I will certainly give his suggestions careful consideration. There are no plans to buy the current opium crop. There are some disagreements about the cost. Figures ranging from $50 million to $150 million have been mentioned, but regardless of the cost, there are disadvantages to that approach. It would deal only with this year's crop, and it could reinforce the perception that opium can be traded for financial assistance. It could prompt other Afghan farmers, who are not currently involved, to start cultivating the opium poppy. It also might encourage something that my hon. Friend said that he wanted to
260WH
avoid—opium producers in other countries trying to increase production in the hope that their crop might be subject to a similar buy-out. However, we shall examine that proposal more carefully.
My hon. Friend also called for research into the development of an environmentally friendly biological agent, which would destroy the opium poppy. We support research that could provide such a breakthrough. He also rightly outlined the importance of the help that we are giving to the neighbouring states—Iran especially—in the central Asian republics. He may be interested to know that Iran is the biggest single recipient of UK money aid for tackling drug trafficking problems. Although he mentioned the devastating impact of opium production in Afghanistan in relation to drug addiction, he may also like to know that in the past 20 years, 3,500 Iranian border officials have been killed while carrying out their duties to try to stem the flow of heroin from Iran over the border. That has a devastating impact, and I am extremely pleased that he supports measures that Iran, supported by Britain and other countries, is taking, and has taken during recent years, to try to solve the problem. Since 1998, the UK has spent £3.9 million on Iran and we also give a great deal of help to Pakistan and the central Asian republics.
It is essential, not just for the region, which has suffered grievously from the failed state status of Afghanistan and consequent opium production, but because of the devastating social and economic impact, especially on constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend, that we help Afghanistan to break its dependence on the drugs trade and the influence exerted by traffickers. Together with the international community, we will provide every assistance to Afghanistan's new Administration to combat this evil trade and its underlying causes. Effective drug control cuts across many issues, encompassing poverty reduction, security and development. Progress must be maintained on all those fronts for a sustained period. With the help of the international community, Afghanistan and its people, and my hon. Friend's constituents, can look forward to a much brighter future.

Trunk Roads (Norfolk)
1.29 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall focus on west Norfolk's roads, but I also want to touch on various road schemes that cover Norfolk as a whole.
King's Lynn, which is at the heart of my constituency, is an important sub-regional centre. King's Lynn and its hinterland has a population of about 30,000 and a thriving industrial base that comprises several large firms, such as Campbell's, Bespak, Foster's and DOW Chemicals. The region's industrial base has traditionally been founded on food processing, but it is now more diverse, and there are also many smaller businesses. King's Lynn also has the Queen Elizabeth hospital, a busy general hospital that employs hundreds of people. The town is the headquarters of the local borough council for King's Lynn and west Norfolk, and many national agencies have local offices there. It is, therefore, a busy, thriving, provincial market town.
However, the Achilles' heel of King's Lynn and west Norfolk has always been the area's poor road and transport network. Firms want to come to King's Lynn, and, when they arrive, they want to stay and expand. They like west Norfolk; they appreciate its hardworking people and its beautiful environment. However, their First concern is the poor trunk road and main road links. To be fair, we now have an electrified railway system that connects King's Lynn, through Cambridge, to London. We have an excellent dual stretch of road west of King's Lynn, on the A47, between King's Lynn and Wisbech, which was opened under the previous Conservative Government, in 1994.
Perhaps the key scheme in west Norfolk, however, is the Hardwick flyover, and I want to refer to it in detail. The Hardwick roundabout is the junction of the A47, the A10 and the A149, and it consistently experiences heavy congestion—all that is required to create long tailbacks is a vehicle breaking down, or an accident—and in the summer, when holiday traffic heads up to the Norfolk coast and towns such as Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, the delays become longer. The Hardwick flyover has acquired symbolic status in our campaign for better communications for west Norfolk. This morning, on Radio Norfolk, Peter Bridgham, the director general of our local chamber of commerce, said that King's Lynn is becoming better known for the Hardwick scheme than for anything else.
I will give a brief history of the Hardwick scheme, because it is important to be aware of its full context. The South Lynn bypass was built towards the end of the 1970s, and the embankments and the flyovers at the Hardwick and Saddlebow roundabouts were also constructed at that time. Therefore, we have had a constant and tantalising reminder of a missed opportunity to complete the project. In 1978, the Hardwick flyover could have been built for a fraction of the current cost, and Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler, then the Member of Parliament for the area, pushed the Labour Government hard to build it. I took over from him, and lobbied successive Ministers. A breakthrough was achieved in 1989 with Paul Channon, now Lord Channon. The "Trunk Roads to Prosperity" White Paper included the Hardwick flyover as part of the A10 West Winch bypass scheme. However, after a few years,
262WH
it became clear that the scheme was going to be complicated and that it would take a long time to be realised, so I lobbied hard to have the Hardwick flyover detached from it.
The Transport Secretary in 1992, Malcolm Rifkind, now Sir Malcolm, detached the flyover from the West Winch bypass scheme, and announced it as a scheme in its own right—as a simple dual carriageway flyover scheme, costing £7 million. Matters proceeded, and the scheme had passed through all of its various planning processes by spring 1996. In February 1997, the then Minister of State, John Watts, gave it a firm starting date of spring 1999, and a costing of about £11.5 million.
However, an election intervened in May 1997. The Labour party won, and the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) took an axe to the trunk roads programme. There was local outrage, and an effective campaign was organised by the local media—particularly the Eastern Daily Press and the Lynn News—to put pressure on the Government. That was backed by my immediate predecessor as Member of Parliament for the area, Dr. George Turner. Eventually the Hardwick flyover was reinstated into the programme. That was announced in 1999, and in 2000 the then Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Lord Whitty, said that work would start in November 2001. The date was then put back a few months to February 2002. There is a snag, however. Unfortunately, the new flyover scheme is a scaled-down version of the 1996 scheme. A single-carriageway flyover will connect the existing A47 dual carriageway on the west side to a new roundabout that will connect to the A47 on the east side. The existing Hardwick roundabout will be converted into two linked roundabouts.
In many ways, the scheme is a bit of a pig's ear. In fact, Dick Broughton, a local councillor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and a prominent member of the National Farmers Union—he represents it in a local roads and transport partnership called "Shaping the Future"—described it as unsightly and resembling a disgusting wart. On the other hand, we must not be churlish. We must temper our disappointment at the new, scaled-down scheme with relief at the fact that something, at least, is going to happen. The general feeling was that if we pushed too hard to persuade the Minister and the Highways Agency to revert to the dual carriageway scheme planned by the previous Conservative Administration, there might be yet further delays.
Of course, we were not expecting the bombshell that was dropped on 6 November, when the Highways Agency announced a further delay of seven months. Unfortunately, it gave a very weak excuse for the delay. In a letter to Norfolk county council's portfolio holder for transport, Adrian Gunson, it said:
"I can assure you that at our meeting with officers from the County Council on 12 October…it was still our intention to start work in February 2002. Subsequent to that meeting, Brown and Root were appointed as our new design consultants for the scheme. They carried out an initial review of the design work previously carried out on the scheme and identified a number of…areas which needed to be revisited or where improvements could be made."
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that there is grave concern locally that Ministers and the Highways Agency are ignoring west Norfolk and giving up on us.

263WH
Unsurprisingly, Norfolk county council is very angry indeed, not least because on 10 September it initiated work on a £1 million resurfacing scheme for the A10, through North Runcton and West Winch to the Hardwick roundabout. Last May, the A10 was detrunked, and the county council decided to spend a substantial amount of money on resurfacing. To be fair, the work was carried out to a very high standard by Lafarge Aggregates, and I should also pay tribute to the county council's engineer, Chris Mitchell, and to Quentin Brogdale, the resident engineer.
However, to expedite the resurfacing contract the road was closed for eight weeks, and a great deal of inconvenience was thereby caused to local residents and businesses. The local garage in West Winch closed temporarily during that period. Two pubs, The Cock and The Sportsman, suffered a significant loss of passing trade, and the village post office also suffered. In Setchey, the local garage and numerous other businesses on the industrial estate lost passing trade. In Tottenhill, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the Andel hotel suffered financially, as did Brundall's garage. Indeed, all those businesses suffered financially as a result of the A10's closure. Perhaps the Minister could say whether there is any chance of their receiving compensation.
The point is that, if Norfolk county council had known of the new start date for the Hardwick flyover scheme, it would almost certainly have decided not to close the A10. This is an example of incompetence and non-joined-up government. I am pleased that the Minister is here to reply to this debate, because I am looking for a firm guarantee from him that there will be no further delays. People in west Norfolk and King's Lynn are fed up with being pushed to the bottom of the pile. We are fed up with a Government who treat King's Lynn and west Norfolk as East Anglia's poor relations who can quietly be forgotten about. I want firm commitments from the Minister.
There are other priorities in Norfolk and as we are discussing road schemes in the county as a whole, I shall outline six of them. The A47 west of King's Lynn has one important stretch of dual carriageway between King's Lynn and Wisbech, but the rest of the road is single carriageway, although it is a very busy link from King's Lynn and the whole of Norfolk to Peterborough and the midlands. It is a vital stretch of road with a crucial need for a dual carriageway bypass round Thorney and other stretches of dual carriageway. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
The A 17 between King's Lynn and Newark particularly affects my constituency and is the main link from King's Lynn and the rest of Norfolk to the A1 and the north. The only stretch of dual carriageway on the A17 between King's Lynn and Newark is the Sleaford bypass. The rest of the road is single carriageway and is very busy.
Dual carriageway trunk and main roads are so much safer than single carriageways and journey times can be planned with some reliability. They improve people's perception of Norfolk's towns because they imply that
264WH
the Government and the Highways Agency treat the town, region or sub-region seriously. That is why dualling is so important.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bellingham: In a moment, but first I want to refer briefly to two important schemes that are a priority for us.
The A47 going east of King's Lynn has only two stretches of dual carriageway between King's Lynn and Norwich: the Swaffham bypass is dualled along its whole length and part of the Dereham bypass is dualled. We need more dual carriageway between King's Lynn and Norwich. We also badly need an entire length of the A47 between King's Lynn and Yarmouth to be dualled. The Acle straight has suffered too long as a single carriageway and badly needs to be dualled. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, Yarmouth and Lowestoft are peripheral and suffer high unemployment; they are the least accessible and most vulnerable of East Anglia's sub-regions. That stretch of road must be dualled.
Mr. Simpson: I happily rise in support of my hon. Friend. The two issues are road safety and, as I am sure the Minister will understand, the stop-go travelling between Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn, which is detrimental to economic investment. Large parts of my constituency are desperate for the A47 to be dualled.
Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He endorses the point that dual carriageway roads are safer. It is frustrating when travelling through his constituency from King's Lynn to Norwich because, although one hits dual carriageway around Swaffham, there is then a poor stretch of road until a short length of dual carriageway round Dereham. The road to Norwich is then all single carriageway.
Safety, reliability of journey times and perception are important. Norfolk has a number of world-class businesses and organisations such as the national construction college in my constituency—the construction industry training board is its governing body—the Norwich Union and so on. It is vital that those organisations are able to plan for the future with some certainty that our road communications will improve.
The A11 connects the M11 and the national motorway network through to Norwich. Quite a lot of the A11 is now dualled, thank goodness, which has made a huge difference when travelling to Norwich by car. I often go by train, but I sometimes drive and in the past it used to take at least three and a half hours from London to Norwich, allowing for various delays on the A11. One can now get to Norwich by car much more quickly because a great deal of the A11 has been dualled. However, there are still two stretches of the road that have not been dualled. There is a particularly bad stretch between Thetford and Roudham Heath, and it is vital that that is dualled as soon as possible. The A11 is the key artery linking Norwich to the motorway network. It is a long stretch of road, and even small parts that remain single carriageway will have a detrimental effect.

265WH
I turn to a matter of which my hon. Friend is fully apprised because it has been a big controversy locally. There is no link road between the A47 Norwich southern bypass and the new £229 million Norfolk and Norwich hospital at Colney. That is a serious problem. The hospital has on several occasions been described by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health as a flagship. It was built under the previous Government's private finance initiative scheme. It is an excellent hospital, and everyone agrees that it is an important facility for the whole of Norfolk. It is crazy that there is no link road between the southern bypass and the hospital. Direct access is essential not only for road safety, but so that ambulances can get to the hospital more quickly. As things stand, there is a hotchpotch of plans, which do not stack up very well, for improving roads to the hospital.
Norwich is represented by two influential Labour MPs—the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is chairman of the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is a distinguished professor. It is a pity that they, working alongside other MPs, have not yet been able to persuade the Government and the Highways Agency to take the link seriously. That is a missed opportunity. What sort of signal does it send to the professionals who work in the hospital? Doctors, nurses and other professionals go there day in, day out. Members of the public who want to use the hospital come along the southern bypass and can see, 200 yd away, the new hospital complex, yet they have to go miles around, possibly facing substantial delays. Even if the Minister cannot give a specific commitment owing to planning or costing problems, a firm steer from him would be welcome in Norfolk.
I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply. I am grateful for his attendance, and await his reply with great interest.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this important debate.
The hon. Gentleman explained how important transport is to his area. Although we hear that about every part of the country, it is true that traditionally transport links have not been good in Norfolk. However, I must chide him a little for saying that the Government are giving up on Norfolk as if it is a poor relation. I assure him that that is not so, and to suggest otherwise is somewhat insulting to the excellent lobbying on local road and rail systems that has been done by some of his colleagues, as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and many others.
Despite having a wide brief that covers not only roads but other aspects of transport, I visited the area to see for myself. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was unable to be there on that occasion. However, I had
266WH
a long discussion with one of his hon. Friends about the value of the new bypasses that we were opening and some of the extra funding for Norfolk which will help with local solutions. If there is time, I shall return to that point.
I am particularly happy at the start of a new year to be given an opportunity to report on the progress that we are making in the planning, design and construction of Norfolk's trunk roads. Let me begin by setting out the background to what we are trying to achieve. In July 1998, the Government published "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". This set out several key objectives including the establishment of a core network of nationally important routes, comprising some 60 per cent. of the trunk road network, and our priorities for tackling some of the most serious and pressing problems through carefully targeted programmes of improvements, which are known colloquially as TPI. The other 40 per cent. of the network was earmarked for de-trunking roads.
In splitting the trunk road network, our aim was to place responsibility for routes with the authority best placed to make decisions about their future. We have been consulting the local authorities about transferring to them the non-core routes so that the management and improvement of those roads could be fully integrated with local transport and land use strategies.
In Norfolk, responsibility for the A10 and A134 was transferred to the county council on 1 May 2001, and responsibility for the A140 was transferred on 1 June 2001. We are currently in the process of transferring responsibility for the A17. I am sure that that will be good news to the hon. Gentleman who now knows that decisions over those particular roads will be made locally. The other good news for him, although he did not have time in his speech to mention it, was the Government's allocation in local transport plans for those roads, and other roads and schemes. They probably include the scheme that he mentioned concerning access to the hospital, and I accept that his point about that is important.
The quantity of funding that has been given to Norfolk is substantial. I was trawling through the figures, and I would be hard pressed to find a local authority that received a greater increase in its funding for local transport plans than Norfolk. In the financial year 2000–01, Norfolk received £4 million for integrated transport. In the same year, it received £5.2 million for maintenance and bridges. In the current financial year those figures are £10 million and £19.25 million respectively. The funding for maintenance and bridges is almost four times higher. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's speech was limited by time, and that he did not have time to mention those huge rises, but we can knock on the head the idea that the Government have given up on Norfolk because it is receiving substantial sums of money to carry out essential work.
The county's transport responsibilities were recognised in this year's local transport capital settlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will examine it closely and perhaps discuss with councillors and others on the local authority how they can best make use of it for the important matters that he raised.
I am sure that the county will make the most of its opportunities. It carried out major maintenance work on the A10 south of the Hardwick roundabout last

267WH
autumn, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. I understand that there was local concern about this because it required a long section of the A10 to be closed for some time. I sympathise with those affected by the disruption but I am advised that the road was too narrow to allow one-way traffic safely to pass while major maintenance works were being carried out.
Transferring responsibility for those roads does not mean that we are neglecting the county. Far from it, the TPI includes a number of schemes to improve access to Norfolk. We plan to improve the A11 trunk road, a major strategic route into Norfolk, by upgrading it fully to dual carriageway standard between the M11 at junction 9 and the Norwich bypass.
Construction began last May on a £42 million scheme to provide a dual carriageway and junction improvements between Roundham Heath and Attleborough and we expect that to be completed in Spring 2003. I was delighted recently to be in discussion with the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) in Attleborough town hall—she gave everyone a good reception with a fine plate of sandwiches. Had the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk been there, he would have seen the pleasure and delight on the faces of the people there at the amount that the Government are investing in that part of Norfolk. I heard praise from people of all political parties, and particularly from those of his party, for the extra funding that had been included in the Government's commitment. One councillor said that it was the first time since he had been in office that there had been a recognition by any Government of the finance and road improvements required.
Proposals for the A11 Fiveways to Thetford improvement and the A11 Attleborough bypass improvement were added to the TPI in March 2000, following appraisal and support given by the regional planning conference. Together, they will provide a dual carriageway for the A11 between the Fiveways roundabout at Barton Mills in Suffolk and the Thetford bypass and the existing single carriageway Attleborough bypass. The Fiveways to Thetford improvements are mainly on line except at the village of Elveden where a bypass will be provided to the north of the village. The sensitive nature of the Breckland sites near the existing road are fully recognised and will be taken into account in the development of the scheme. Those schemes were given overwhelming support at public consultations held in February and March 2001, and I recently announced the preferred routes in
268WH
Attleborough town hall. Subject to the completion of the statutory procedures, work can start in 2005 with completion in 2007.
Following consideration by the regional planning conference, a scheme to bypass Thorney was added to the TPI in March 2000. Thorney, on the A47 to the east of Peterborough, suffers from a large volume of through traffic including a high proportion of heavy lorries. A bypass will bring safety and environmental benefits to the local community and remove a bottleneck. Strong local support exists for its early construction. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I announced a preferred route for a 5 km northern bypass for Thorney last November. I assure him that that is also a dual carriageway and, had he been at that town hall meeting, he would have heard the warm applause in response to my remarks. Detailed proposals are being developed and we hope to start the necessary statutory process later this year. I have asked the Highways Agency to speed up delivery of this locally popular scheme without compromising the statutory process, so that work can start in 2004 and be completed in 2006. The construction of the scheme will enhance the trunk network and accessibility into Norfolk.
Improving the road network is not just about building bypasses. We want to make the best use of what already exists. An example of that, as already mentioned, is the Hardwick roundabout at the eastern end of the A47 King's Lynn southern bypass. That roundabout has an important confluence of local traffic and that from the tourist trade. The scheme to improve the roundabout is important to local people and we aim to seek tenders for construction of the scheme this March. That is a few months later than originally planned, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the delay, but it was necessary to allow time for additional design work in many areas. I share his disappointment about that, and hope that people will recognise the importance of ensuring that the scheme is designed and constructed to the highest safety standards.
Sadly, I have had only 11 minutes to respond so I have not been able to cover all the hon. Gentleman's points. If he cares to drop me a short note I will happily respond in writing. He has raised important points, but I hope that he accepts that the Government have in no way neglected the needs of Norfolk; they have been recognised more strongly than ever before.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Euro
  Mr. Weir
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 624W, on the euro, whether the results of a future referendum on UK membership of the euro will be broken down and available by each nation and region of the UK. [25022]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 11 December to the hon. Member for Linlithgow in relation to the letter from the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, what encouragement Her Majesty's Government have given the US Government to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. [23646]

  The Prime Minister
  The issue has been discussed bilaterally with Secretary of State Powell as well as with officials in the US Administration. The EU, as part of its Common Policy towards the ICC, has expressed concern at the proposed introduction of legal measures which might in any way impede or delay the USA's ultimate ratification of the Rome Statute or future relations with the Court.

  Honours
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask The Prime Minister in what circumstances he would recommend the removal of the honour of OBE; and if he will make a statement. [25392]

  The Prime Minister
  Holders of honours who have committed offences which bring the honours system into disrepute may be considered for forfeiture. It is Government policy not to discuss individual cases.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask The Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the President of the United States concerning missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [25628]

  The Prime Minister
  I last discussed missile defence with President Bush in early December.

  We share US concerns about the threats stemming from the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction and understand the role that missile defences can play as part of a comprehensive strategy to tackle
  820W
  these threats. I welcome the commitment of both Russia and the US to continue discussions on a new strategic framework including issues related to missile defence.

  Members' Communications
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask The Prime Minister what rules govern the approval of monitoring of communications of hon. Members. [25291]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 367W.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask The Prime Minister what the impact of the Performance and Innovation Unit's review of energy needs will be on renewable energy generation.[23442]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU energy review will make recommendations on a range of issues and will be published in due course.

  Max Mosley
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask The Prime Minister on what dates he has(a) met, (b) spoken by telephone to and (c) written to the President of the Federation Internationale de 1'Automobile; and if he will place a copy of the notes of such communications in the Library.[25618]

  The Prime Minister
  I have contact and meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask The Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [26093]

  The Prime Minister
  The Appointments Commission brought new standards of transparency, professionalism and rigour into the selection of independent peers. The Commission has, as required, published criteria for appointing peers on the basis that individuals should have a record of outstanding achievement, political independence, integrity and the ability to contribute to the House.

  The 15 new independent peers were appointed because they have skills and qualities that will benefit the legislative scrutiny and revising work of the second Chamber. They included a world authority on palliative care, an expert on youth and social exclusion, a top British businessman and a leading educationist. Their expertise is already contributing to debates in the House.

  As my hon. Friend knows, the White Paper on Lords Reform published last year proposes a statutory Appointments Commission to appoint independent members and to continue an open and transparent process of appointing independent members to the House of Lords. In the meantime the Appointments Commission will continue its role.
  821W

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Emergencies
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office how his Department co-ordinates with other Government Departments in planning for civil emergencies. [23450]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for co-ordinating departmental strategies for civil contingencies across Government, and is conducting a review of emergency planning at present.

  Regional Governance
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what recent discussions he has had with(a) regional development agencies and (b) regional authorities and chambers about his Department's responsibilities for regional governance in England. [23451]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Over the past few months, my ministerial colleagues and I have met a wide range of regional leaders, including representatives of regional development agencies, regional chambers, local authorities and other stakeholders across England to discuss regional governance. As we prepare the White Paper we have been encouraging a wider public debate on the issues. Ministers are actively encouraging views from all concerned.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office when he last met Ministers of the devolved institutions to discuss issues relevant to regional government in England. [23452]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I reported on progress on our White Paper on English regional governance to the annual plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on 30 October 2001. The devolved Administrations expressed their support for extending the benefits of devolution where there was a regional demand for it, and offered to assist the process based on their own experience of devolution to date.

  The territorial Secretaries of State are members of the Committee on the Nations and Regions which has been meeting regularly under my chairmanship to oversee the development of the White Paper.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what plans he has to change the function of Government offices in the regions. [23462]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  We are continuing to develop the role of the Government Offices so that they can operate across the full range of Departments whose policies and programmes have a local or regional impact.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office how many of the Government offices of the regions the Deputy Prime Minister has visited since June. [23466]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Since June, I have visited three Government offices. My hon. Friend the Minister of State Cabinet Office has visited five Government offices.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what his policy is on setting a maximum limit to the number of special advisers employed by Government Departments. [23453]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The rules on the appointment of special advisers are set in the Ministerial Code. In addition, in response to reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration Select Committee, the Government have committed themselves to a limit on the number of special advisers which will form part of the package of Civil Service legislation.

  Regulations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what steps are being taken to ensure that assessments of the impact of regulations are consistent between Government Departments. [23454]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are determined that regulations should not be introduced unless they are necessary and the benefits justify the costs.

  In accordance with this, all regulatory proposals likely to have a significant cost to business, charities and the voluntary sector require a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

  Rural Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others on the co-ordination of rural policy. [23456]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 898W.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what measures he is taking to encourage the dispersal of civil servants and Ministries from London to the regions. [23457]

  Mr. Leslie
  The existing dispersal of many civil service functions across the UK has worked well, and the Government believe that the administration of public service benefits from this national and regional diversity. The Government will continue to consider this matter.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what the role of his office is with regard to(a) climate change and (b) international climate change discussions. [23458]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I continue to play a role on international climate change discussions and negotiations on behalf of my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister. I work to foster effective relationships internationally at the highest political level. The UK's negotiating positions for international negotiations on climate change are agreed through the
  823W
  Cabinet Committee on the Environment, which I chair. The lead Department for climate change is DEFRA, which retains policy responsibility for international negotiations and implementation of the UK's policies. My office works closely with them and with other Departments with a key interest on strategic and cross-departmental issues.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office if he will set out the part his Department has played in co-ordinating Government work on climate change in the last month. [23468]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  During the last month the Cabinet Office has continued to work with other Government Departments— including DEFRA which has lead responsibility for climate change—in furthering Government policy on climate change.

  The Cabinet Office has provided support to me as I continue to pursue international agreement on climate change on behalf of The Prime Minister.

  Regeneration
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office if he will second an official from the Cabinet Office to the North Staffordshire Partnership to assist in the regeneration of the region. [23459]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that at the present time there are three Cabinet Office secondees working on regeneration issues with the North Staffordshire Partnership.

  Social Exclusion
  Brian White
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office if he will list the projects being undertaken by the social exclusion unit. [23461]

  Mrs. Roche
  The unit is currently working on four projects, looking at: re-offending by ex-prisoners; young runaways; educational attainment of children in care; and transport and social exclusion.

  Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what recent meetings his Ministers have had with the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside. [23463]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I last met the Regional Director of the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber on 27 June. My hon. Friend the Minister of State Cabinet Office met various staff of the Government Office on 4 December.

  Relocation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the scope to relocate Executive functions of(a) Government Departments and (b) public agencies to the nations and regions of the UK. [23464]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  No such assessment has been made.
  824W
  Individual Government Departments and agencies are free to make their own decisions about location and facilities on the basis of operational requirements and value for money.

  Internet
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the work of the e-envoy in expanding the use of the internet among the population. [23465]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the e-envoy is committed to the goal of ensuring that everyone in the UK who wants it may have access to the internet by 2005.

  Progress towards meeting this target is detailed in Section 3 of the recently published UK online annual report.

  Government Car Service
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the annual report of the Government Car Service. [23467]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Annual Report and Accounts of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, of which the Government Car Service is a part, were seen and approved by me before publication in the House on 17 July 2001. Furthermore, the agency's financial statements contained in that report were subject to an audit by the National Audit Office and no observations were made.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State for Cabinet Office what role his Department is playing in promoting neighbourhood renewal in the most disadvantaged communities. [23440]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Cabinet Office plays a full role in work across Government to deliver the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

  Both the Social Exclusion Unit and the Regional Co-ordination Unit support the work of other Government Departments to deliver sustainable improvements in the most disadvantaged areas, and of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit in co-ordinating and leading strategy centrally.

  The nine Government Offices for the Regions have particular responsibility for neighbourhood renewal at regional level, supporting local strategies, administering funds and reporting on local activity.

DEFENCE

  Naval Vessels
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature, time scale and cost of repairing the defect which was discovered on HMS Sceptre, HMS Sovereign and HMS Superb. [24913]

  Mr. Ingram
  Indications of small original fabrication imperfections discovered during routine ultrasonic inspection of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) in HMS
  825W
  Sceptre identified the need for more detailed analysis to support the existing safety case for reactor plant operation. Inspection of Sceptre will be undertaken as part of her refit at Rosyth Dockyard. While imperfections have not been identified in either Sovereign or Superb, they have similar Reactor Pressure Vessel design. An acceptable safety case was produced for Superb and she has now returned to operations, pending further inspection later this year. Precautionary inspection of Sovereign is now taking place during her on-going maintenance at Clyde Submarine Base. The time scale and cost of work to return Sceptre and Sovereign to operations is subject to

  Location/proportion

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  Grand total

  Grand total

  41,840

  109,775

  53,211

  204,826

  United Kingdom (84 per cent.)

  35,317

  77,682

  47,535

  160,543

  Overseas total (16 per cent.)

  6,523

  32,093

  5,676

  44,292

  Overseas split by location:

  Continental Europe

  3,069

  15,465

  1,801

  20,335

  Cyprus

  6

  2,460

  1,094

  3,560

  Gibraltar

  223

  65

  112

  400

  Other Mediterranean, Near East and Gulf

  1,514

  5,921

  1,369

  8,804

  Far East

  15

  243

  20

  278

  Other locations

  1,696

  7,939

  1,280

  10,915

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)

  Hearing Loss (Compensation)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retired members of the armed forces have claimed compensation for service-related Noise Induced Sensorineural Hearing Loss since 1990; how many claims were accepted; how many claimants appealed to the pensions appeal tribunals; and how many claims were rejected. [25324]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not available in relation to War Pension claims for disablement arising from Noise Induced Sensorineural Hearing Loss and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims by retired members of the armed forces for compensation for service-related noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss since 1990 were disallowed for the reason that(a) hearing loss at the time of claiming was less than 50 dB averaged over one, two and three kHz, (b) hearing loss at the time of leaving the armed forces was less than 50 dB averaged over one, two and three Khz, (c) hearing loss exceeding 50 dB after leaving the service but at the time of leaving the armed forces the hearing loss was less than 50 dB averaged over one, two and three kHz, (d) hearing loss exceeding 50 dB averaged over one, two and three kHz after leaving the service but there was no evidence of hearing loss at the time of leaving and (e) claims were made more than seven years after leaving the armed forces. [25323]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested in items(a) to (d) is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Claims to war disablement pensions are not disallowed if lodged more than seven years after leaving the armed forces. There are no time limits for claiming.
  826W
  acceptable inspection results and the complexity of the associated safety case, so cannot be provided with accuracy at this stage.

  British Forces (Deployment)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are serving overseas and in which countries; and what proportion of United Kingdom military forces are(a) overseas and (b) in the United Kingdom. [24986]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of UK regular forces serving overseas as at 1 November 2001 broken down by service.

  Missile Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made since 11 September on the potential value of national missile defence for the United Kingdom. [25451]

  Mr. Hoon
  The position remains unchanged. We understand the potential role missile defence can play as one element of a comprehensive strategy to tackle a ballistic missile threat. What the events of 11 September show is that there are those who will seek to threaten with whatever means are available the US, its friends and allies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations he is giving to the development of a ballistic missile defence system for the UK. [25790]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to assess the threat posed by ballistic missiles. We also continue to assess ballistic missile defence technology, which is evolving rapidly. We do so in the context of needing to tackle the threat with a comprehensive strategy and broad range of defensive measures. We fully support the continuing NATO Theatre Missile Defence Feasibility Studies, and we have a long-standing technical dialogue with the US on the subject of ballistic missile defence. We believe that it remains premature to decide on acquiring a ballistic missile defence capability for either deployed forces or defence of the UK. But we recognise the role ballistic missile defence can play, and our options remain open.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the NATO theatre ballistic missile defence feasibility studies to conclude. [25794]

  Mr. Hoon
  The studies are due to end in December 2002.

  Warship Repair Facilities
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for(a) increased efficiency in and (b) modernisation of the UK's warship repair facilities. [25427]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The UK's warship repair is provided at Devonport by Devonport Management Ltd., at Rosyth by Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. and at Portsmouth by Fleet Support Ltd. The Ministry of Defence is currently seeking to modernise arrangements for warship support across the UK's Naval Bases and Dockyards. Within this initiative, as well as pursuing efficiencies at the Naval Bases, the MOD is seeking to increase the proportion of the programme for surface warship repair that is opened up to competition, with the aim of helping the dockyard companies to drive out excess capacity and increase efficiency.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been reported in his Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999, and how many of them related to special advisers. [25332]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Call-out Orders
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many call-out orders he signed during 2001; what plans he has for further call-outs; and if he will make a statement. [25702]

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

  Reserve Surgical Teams
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in exploratory talks with the NHS on the provision of sponsored reserve surgical teams. [25791]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health (DoH) and the National Health Service (NHS) met in November 2001 to discuss the provision of sponsored reserve surgical teams. The meeting was very useful and we are encouraged by the drive and enthusiasm shown by DoH and NHS colleagues. Initial scoping work is currently being undertaken on a pilot project which we expect to be finalised in the course of the current year.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will place an unclassified version of the report of the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment in the Library; [25796]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 661W, when he will place the summary of Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme in the Library. [25705]
  828W
  Mr. Hoon
  An unclassified summary of the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme is at an advanced stage of preparation. I expect to place copies of it in the Library of the House within the first quarter of 2002.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to immunise the armed forces from smallpox and its variants. [25697]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have no immediate plans to immunise members of the armed forces against smallpox or its variants. We continually review the package of defensive measures against chemical and biological attack available to our armed forces, which includes immunisation, commensurate with an assessment of the threat. The Ministry of Defence has in place a series of research, development and procurement programmes aimed at ensuring that personnel are afforded optimum protection against chemical and biological warfare agents, including against smallpox.

  Falcon
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Falcon project. [25696]

  Dr. Moonie
  Falcon will provide a formation level communication system for UK forces including the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. Falcon remains a significant component of an on-going programme of continuous improvements in Army communications that also includes projects Bowman and Skynet V. Current plans remain on schedule to begin delivery of Falcon in 2006–07.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have taken place in forecast expenditure on Falcon since 30 October. [23337]

  Dr. Moonie
  No changes have occurred to the forecast expenditure on Falcon since 30 October 2001. Falcon remains a significant component of an on-going programme of continuous improvements in Army communications systems that also includes projects Bowman and Skynet V. Current plans remain on schedule to begin delivery of Falcon in 2006–07.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, and for what reason, a decision was taken to reduce expenditure on the Falcon project. [23344]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decision has been taken to reduce expenditure on the Falcon project.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure is forecast for the Falcon project in(a) 2004, (b) 2006 and (c) further phases; and if he will make a statement. [23343]

  Dr. Moonie
  Falcon is currently nearing the end of the concept phase and in keeping with the principles of smart acquisition decisions on precise timing and levels of expenditure will be informed by work both in concept and assessment phases. Current plans remain on schedule to begin delivery of project Falcon in 2006–07.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the extent to which Bowman is dependent upon replacing the current Ptarmigan system with Falcon. [23338]
  829W
  Dr. Moonie
  As a tactical radio system designed for use from Divisional level and below, effective operation of Bowman is not dependent upon replacement of the current Ptarmigan system with Falcon. Falcon will provide a highly capable communication infrastructure to enable the rapid passage of data between Bowman networks thus contributing significantly to the programme of planned improvements for Army communications.

  Chemical and Biological Warfare
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new expenditure he plans for defence against chemical and biological warfare in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [25799]

  Mr. Hoon
  Expenditure on new equipment for defence against chemical and biological warfare in 2001–02 is estimated, in resource terms, to be in the region of £26 million. Expenditure planned for 2002–03 and 2003–04 has yet to be finalised.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review of the ESDP will be conducted to establish if it meets the needs of the changed international climate. [25804]

  Mr. Hoon
  While there are no plans formally to review the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), EU governments will wish to discuss the implications of the changed international climate as their responses to international terrorism are developed. Our work on producing a "new chapter" for the Strategic Defence Review will include an assessment of the role that international organisations, including the EU, might play.

  Most of the capabilities being developed under ESDP can also play an important part in a military response to international terrorism.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operations in which he expects the new ESDP to operate. [25802]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Council agreed at Helsinki in December 1999 that EU member states should be able by 2003, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to deploy military forces, capable of conducting the full range crisis management operations known as the Petersberg tasks. These include humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making. The European Council at Laeken in December last year agreed that the EU is now able to conduct some crisis-management operations within this definition. The EU will be progressively more able to take on increasingly demanding operations as the assets and capabilities available to it continue to develop and improve. Decisions to launch and participate in operations will be taken by national governments, on a case by case basis, in light of the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had at Laeken about the application of qualified majority voting to EU defence policy. [25795]
  830W
  Mr. Hoon
  None. The European Security and Defence Policy falls under Pillar Two of the European Union. Decisions are taken on an intergovernmental basis by unanimous consensus.

  Topmast Inquiry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what issues are being assessed by the Topmast inquiry; and when he plans to publish the Topmast recommendations. [25633]

  Mr. Ingram
  Topmast (Tomorrow's Personnel Management System) is developing the manpower management systems needed by the future Navy. It will provide a flexible and responsive system for the management and deployment of manpower which will meet operational needs while providing attractive employment conditions and career progression for Royal Navy personnel. Topmast is also planned to contribute to the reduction of overstretch and the achievement of manpower balance. Following successful trials, Topmast will be rolled out on a phased basis beginning in April 2002. Topmast has already received publicity within the Naval Service, and a comprehensive communication and information programme will ensure that members of the service are fully aware of its purpose and impact.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that there is no reduction in the planned size of the Army. [25692]

  Mr. Ingram
  Whole Army strength has increased over recent months and we predict a strength figure of between 103,000 and 104,000 by 2005. We remain committed to delivering the military capability required of the Army in the Strategic Defence Review. Work is ongoing into how best to achieve this taking into account evolving doctrine, new technology and equipment.

  Defence Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total value of bids submitted for the 2002 short-term programme; and what resources will be available for STP 02; [25677]

  (2) what was the total value of bids submitted for the 2002 Equipment Programme; and what resources will be allocated for funding EP 02. [25634]

  Mr. Ingram
  The resources available for the Defence programme are in the case of 2002–03 and 2003–04 set out in the Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 published in April 2001 (Cm 5109) and in the case of subsequent years depend on the outcome of the 2002 and successive Spending Reviews. Specific allocations to budget holders in 2002–03 will be published in Main Resources Estimates 2002–03. Details of individual budget holders' proposals for expenditure are withheld under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Planning Structures
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when ESDP and NATO planning structures will be assimilated. [25805]
  831W
  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans to assimilate NATO planning structures with the EU. Arrangements are being developed for assured access by the European Union to NATO planning capabilities.

  Defence Ministers (Greece and Turkey)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the(a) Turkish and (b) Greek Defence Minister. [25800]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am in regular contact with my Greek and Turkish colleagues and often meet them in the normal course of defence business. I expect to meet both Mr. Çakmakoglu and Mr. Papantoniou again in the first half of 2002.

  War Graves
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the Belgian Government about the impact on British war graves of the plans to build the A19 road through the Pilckem Ridge. [25495]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has had no discussions with the Belgian Government about proposals for a new road through Pilckem Ridge, nor would the Department expect to do so. Any approach to the British Government from the Belgian Government would follow established protocols and, in the first instance, would be to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through the British Embassy in Brussels.

  However, I am advised by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which has the responsibility for the maintenance of war graves of British and Commonwealth troops in Belgium, that they have had local discussions with the Belgian authorities seeking further clarification of the proposals. They have been assured that while the proposed route has not been finalised, it will not interfere with any Commission-maintained cemetery.

  Laeken Summit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the defence and security implications of the Laeken summit and (b) on the operationally of ESDP within the agreement of NATO for automatic access to NATO capabilities. [24950]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Laeken European Council concluded that the EU is now able to conduct some crisis-management operations and that it will be in a position to take on progressively more demanding operations as the assets and capabilities at its disposal continue to develop. This is entirely consistent with the UK's emphasis on the need to improve European military capabilities.

  This represents useful progress towards the aim set out in the Helsinki Headline Goal, but recognises that capabilities are currently limited. We welcome the commitment reaffirmed by member states at Laeken to continue their efforts to meet the Headline Goad.

  There has been considerable progress towards an agreement on arrangements for EU access to NATO assets and capabilities, but this is not yet fully concluded.
  832W
  Once these agreements are in place, the scale and complexity of the operations that the EU could lead will be considerably increased.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is undertaking to improve numbers in the TA. [25694]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current strength of the Territorial Army (TA), including those mobilised on operations and on Full Time Reserve Service, almost exactly matches the overall target size of the TA set as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. It is therefore in good shape, although there are some specific areas where numbers fall short of target, most notably the Army Medical Service (TA). The current "Time to get fitTA" campaign, launched on 28 December 2001, and a further recruiting campaign to be launched in the spring, are intended to keep the TA in its current healthy state.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many TA Intelligence Corps personnel he is mobilising; and if he will make a statement; [R] [25143]

  (2) where he plans to deploy TA Intelligence Corps personnel under mobilisation order; and if he will make a statement; [R] [25144]

  (3) what arrangements are being made to ensure that mobilised TA personnel will enjoy make up of civilian pay plus other allowances; and if he will make a statement; [R] [25145]

  (4) which Territorial Army units are under mobilization orders. [R] [25146]

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

  Allied Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the possibility of transferring the running of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to France or Germany. [23336]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the Framework Nation, the UK has invested heavily in manpower, resources and training to ensure that the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe's primary land forces tool for crisis management. We believe that it will remain so for the foreseeable future. There are no plans to transfer the Framework Nation role for the ARRC to France or Germany.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the importance of modernising Army communication systems to maintain UK running of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in the face of competition from Germany and France. [23340]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) remains a key component of the UK's commitment to NATO. This commitment is reflected in current plans to provide a range of strategic communication enhancements to the ARRC from 2002 so ensuring it can meet NATO requirements as a high readiness force. In addition, the ARRC will benefit
  833W
  directly from the planned programme of continuous improvements to Army communication systems delivered through projects Bowman, Skynet V and Falcon.

  Army Communications
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the budget for modernising army communications has been reduced. [23341]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decision has been taken to reduce the budget for modernising army communication systems. On the contrary, significant plans are in place to deliver a programme of continuous improvement to army communication systems through projects Bowman, Skynet V and Falcon.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many telephone lines are being rented to make good deficiencies in the Army Ptarmigan system. [23342]

  Dr. Moonie
  Subject to operational considerations, geographically separate Ptarmigan systems may be connected by local telephone networks to provide interconnectivity and communications infrastructure resilience over substantial distances. In addition, elements of the UK civil telephone network can be used to facilitate low level Ptarmigan training. The number of telephones used at any given time is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional equipment is being provided by signal requirements to make good deficiencies in the Army Ptarmigan system. [23339]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ptarmigan system continues to meet the operational requirement for which it was originally procured. In response to the changing and wide ranging demands now placed upon the armed forces, a number of Ptarmigan enhancements are being procured to ensure the system remains fully effective in the modern environment. Improvements include an enhancement to the mobile communications capability and an update of the Electronic Repair Vehicle. Post design services tasks, such as generator replacement, also continue to ensure Ptarmigan remains fully effective. In the longer term, the Army's trunk communication's requirement will be met by project Falcon, due to replace Ptarmigan from 2006–07.

  Decontamination Equipment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what NBC(a) detection and (b) decontamination equipment is available to (i) RAF bases, (ii) naval bases and (iii) Army bases; what plans he has to upgrade it; what arrangements he has made for that equipment to be made available to the civil authorities; how deployable it would be in the event of an NBC attack on mainland Britain; and if he will make a statement. [25151]

  Mr. Ingram
  Sufficient detection and decontamination equipment is held by armed forces to ensure that they can maintain their effectiveness against the threat from NBC weapons on deployed operations. There are constant improvements in these capabilities.

  The civil authorities have a detection and decontamination capability and are responsible for detection of NBC weapons in the UK and for
  834W
  decontamination if there is an attack. The Ministry of Defence would be available to provide support to civil authorities depending on circumstances.

  Service Pensioners
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service pensioners there are; and if he will make a statement. [25838]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 31 March 2001, there were 269,135 service pensioners.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel have served more than 10 years but less than that required for a full pension, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [25837]

  Mr. Ingram
  Full pension for other ranks is payable after completion of 37 years service. The figures in the table show those who have left having served more than 10 years but less than 37 years in the 12-month period up to 1 April in the specified years.

  Year

  Number

  1 April 2001

  78,823

  1 April 2000

  79,412

  1 April 1999

  78,638

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service widows qualify for service pensions; and if he will make a statement. [25835]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 31 March 2001 there were 65,282 widows and widowers receiving service pensions.

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training exercises have been carried out by the armed forces in and from(a) Spain, (b) Portugal, (c) the Netherlands, (d) Germany, (e) Norway and (f) the United States in the last 12 months. [25793]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table indicates the number of unilateral or bilateral training exercises carried out in the last 12 months.

  Number of training exercises

  UK forces abroad

  Spain

  6

  Portugal

  1

  The Netherlands

  1

  Germany

  14

  Norway

  10

  United States

  29

  Foreign forces in UK

  Spanish

  0

  Portuguese

  2

  The Netherlands

  6

  German

  5

  Norwegian

  0

  United States

  16

  Harassment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the internal complaints procedure for harassment experienced by armed forces personnel during training; and if he will make a statement. [25317]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces take their obligations as an employer very seriously. The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct sets standards of personal behaviour and we uphold a policy of zero tolerance towards any incidents of harassment, victimisation, unlawful discrimination or bullying. The well established procedures for dealing with harassment complaints within the Services do not differentiate between those under training and those who are trained.

  Nuclear Base
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future(a) operation and (b) organisation of Britain's nuclear base on the River Clyde. [25426]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is seeking to modernise arrangements for warship support and achieve best value for money for the Defence budget. At the Clyde, as at the other Naval Bases at Devonport and Portsmouth, we have received proposals from the Dockyard Companies for potential partnering arrangements. We have also received alternative proposals from the Trades Unions for the pursuit of efficiencies at the Naval Bases. All options are currently being considered, and decisions on the way ahead will be made in the near future. We have no plans to privatise the facilities.

  The Naval Base Commander will remain in charge of the operation of the Base and in control of all the outputs. The proposals for partnering at the Clyde would entail Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. taking on the management of engineering support, facilities and estates management and certain logistics functions at the Naval Base. There would be no change to the overall operation of the Base. The proposals will not affect nuclear authorisation, or safety and security at the Naval Base.

  Heavy Equipment Transporter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to take receipt of the first heavy equipment transporter; and who is the prime contractor. [25695]

  Dr. Moonie
  I expect the first 20 heavy equipment transporters to enter service in 2003. The equipment will not be the property of the Ministry of Defence but will be owned and operated by the Fasttrax consortium, led by Brown and Root, under the privately financed service contract placed on 14 December 2001.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Challenger II tanks, (b) Warrior, (c) Saxon, (d) FV430, (e) Sabre, (f) Scimitar, (g) Striker, (h) Spartan, (i) Sultan, (j) Samson and (k) Samaritan armoured vehicles were operational in (i) October and (ii) November. [25699]
  836W
  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is held quarterly and not monthly. The information for the quarter ending 31 December 2001 will be available at the end of this month. I will write to the hon. Member at that stage and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  WEU
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military planning officials from the WEU will be transferred to the EU military planning section. [25797]

  Mr. Hoon
  The WEU military staff ceased to function in June 2001. EU military staff posts are filled by national secondees. There has been no formal transfer of WEU military staff to the EU, although some individuals have been transferred.

  A400M
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many A400M's have to be ordered by EU member states for the programme to be cost effective. [25801]

  Dr. Moonie
  The A400M contract signed on 18 December 2001 was for an initial order of 196 aircraft, well above the notional programme viability level of 180 aircraft. An offtake of less than 180 would impact on programme costs, which would clearly need to be considered by partner nations.

  Aircrew Retention
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the series of issues affecting retention that the working party on Aircrew Retention has been examining. [25703]

  Mr. Ingram
  The main issues identified by the Aircrew Retention Review as to why aircrew leave the Services were:

  (a) The pull of a buoyant external employment market (while current difficulties being experienced by the civil sector may result in a short-term reduction in the pull factor, long-term solutions will be needed.

  (b) A push effect arising from a diminution in faith/belief in the influence of senior leadership (this phenomenon has also been detected by other nations' armed forces).

  (c) A host of "quality of life" issues, including the level of operational tempo and some career-management issues.

  (d) The push of a gratuity/pension being available should aircrew decide to leave in their late 30s.

  Action to address some of these issues was already in hand (such as the creation of a Defence Leadership Centre); for others it will take longer to make an impact but, under the direction of the Defence Management Board, plans are being drawn up to address each of the issues raised by aircrew. In some cases the retention-negative factors are an integral part of life in the armed forces and, as an acknowledgement of this, Service pay is augmented by the "X" factor (currently 13 per cent.).

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present deployment of Royal Navy ships. [25798]
  837W
  Mr. Ingram
  As at 7 January 2002, 21 Royal Navy ships were deployed from their home ports. HMS Illustrious, HMS Fearless, HMS Cornwall and HMS Southampton are deployed in the Gulf region in support of Operation Veritas. The Armilla Patrol Ship HMS Kent is also in the Gulf. The survey vessel HMS Scott is deployed in the Arabian Sea. HMS Montrose, HMS Leeds Castle and the Ice Patrol Vessel, HMS Endurance, are in the South Atlantic. HMS Exeter, allocated to NATO's Standing Naval Forces Atlantic, is currently in the mediterranean as is the survey vessel HMS Beagle. HMS Chatham left Devonport on 6 January to rejoin NATO Standing Force Mediterranean. Other ships away from their home ports are HMS Cumberland, HMS Portland, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Somerset, HMS Middleton, HMS Dulverton, HMS Lindisfarne, HMS Dumbarton Castle and HMS Alderney. These vessels are deployed in or around UK waters, either on patrol, trials or transit.

  HMS Sutherland is alongside at Devonport at 14 days notice to move to the Caribbean.

  For completeness, as at 7 January 2002, a total of 14 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships were also deployed in support of the Royal Navy ships.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review. [25803]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 December 2001,Official Report, columns 5–6W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Submarines (Female Personnel)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to allow female personnel to serve in submarines. [25690]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are committed to equality of opportunity in the armed forces, and all posts are open to women unless there are specific reasons to the contrary. Women are not presently permitted to serve in submarines because of medical concerns for the safety of a foetus and hence of the mother. These concerns arise from the contaminants which build up in the atmosphere of our submarines, all of which are nuclear powered and may remain submerged for up to 90 days for operational reasons. These contaminants include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and about 30 other substances potentially harmful to a foetus. Medical studies have shown that these contaminants may occur at levels which, while they are not harmful to adults, exceed those considered safe for the foetus of a pregnant woman. There is no reliable test for detecting pregnancy in its very early stages.

  The medical advice on this issue has recently been subjected to independent review by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; both have supported the key conclusions of the earlier research work. Accordingly, I have agreed that women should continue to be excluded from service in submarines for the time being. However, the medical research and advice will be kept under active review, together with other relevant factors such as the experience of other Navies.
  838W

  Departmental Homes
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's homes have been empty in each year since 1990; what action is being taken to reduce their numbers; and if he will make a statement. [25813]

  Dr. Moonie
  Data for service family accommodation in UK for 1990 and 1995–2001 are given in table 3.31 of UK Defence Statistics 2001, which is available in the Library of the House. The data for the period 1991 to 1994 is available in earlier editions of Defence Statistics. A summary is given in the table:

  Thousand

  Year to April

  Vacant service family accommodation

  1990

  11.8

  1991

  10.3

  1992

  9.4

  1993

  9.2

  1994

  9.9

  1995

  9.9

  1996

  13.5

  1997

  13.2

  1998

  13.5

  1999

  14.0

  2000

  14.7

  2001

  10.4

  Over many years, the continuing decline in service families' demand for married quarters has offset reductions in the Defence housing stock. However, the Defence Housing Executive is making good progress with a substantial programme of surplus property disposal. Over 6,700 houses were disposed of in the 15 months to 31 March 2001, and a further 3,500 have been identified for disposal by 31 March 2002.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 349W, on Kosovo, what plans he has to investigate the failure on 6 November to meet the target time in which priority one casualties require to be repatriated. [25206]

  Mr. Ingram
  A priority one patient is defined as somebody for whom speedy evacuation is necessary to save life or limb, to prevent serious illness or to avoid serious permanent disability. The Royal Air Force aim to return such patients to the UK within 24 hours of a request for medical evacuation. The actual time taken to return a patient to the UK will reflect a number of factors, including the stability of their condition—to move a patient too soon can be as dangerous as to move them too late—the distance to be travelled and the weather.

  Of equal importance is the treatment the patient receives pending their return. In the case to which you refer, all the procedures followed have been, as always in such cases, subject to close scrutiny to ensure all was done that could be done to provide the best levels of medical care as quickly as possible. The patients were properly cared for within the intensive treatment unit of the integrated US/UK medical unit at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and there were no delays in the return leg of the aeromedical evacuation flight.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what plans her Department has to tackle the trade in bushmeat; [25812]

  (2) what funding (a) has been granted by her Department to projects connected to the trade in bushmeat in West and Central Africa in each year since 1999 and (b) is projected for (i) 2002, (ii) 2003 and (iii) 2004. [25808]

  Hilary Benn
  Responsibility for addressing the international trade in bushmeat lies with HM Customs and Excise, who implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  In this context, DFID is involved in various initiatives that contribute to the conservation of wild animals and their habitats (see Annexe 1). We fund projects and studies that address sustainable forest management and bushmeat production where this is key to tackling poverty. We currently fund three projects in West Africa with direct links to bushmeat. Part of the Mount Cameroon Project (MCP) is supporting local communities to manage forest resources sustainably; this accounts for an estimated £50,000 p.a. of the projects funds. The Cameroon

  Annexe 1: Examples of DFID-supported bilateral projects, and research and studies, that have a strong focus on wildlife/bushmeat species

  Name of project

  Country

  Period of support

  Amount (£000)

  Mbomipa Community Wildlife Project

  Tanzania

  1997–2001

  1,973

  Wildlife Intensification for Livelihood Development (WILD)

  Namibia

  1999–2002

  1,040

  Madikwe Community Wildlife Management

  South Africa

  1997–1999

  622

  Amboro Rural Development

  Bolivia

  1996–2000

  3,200

  Mount Cameroon Project

  Cameroon

  1995–2002

  10,602

  Community Forest Development Project

  Cameroon

  1999–2002

  1,049

  Indonesian Multi-Stakeholder

  Indonesia

  1998–2005

  25,150

  Cross River State Community Forestry Project

  Nigeria

  1996–2001

  2,000

  Forest Sector Development Project Phase II

  Ghana

  2000–04

  11,963

  Joint-funding scheme with WWF:

  Gashaka-Gumpti/Kupe

  Nigeria/Cameroon

  1991–2001

  6,289

  Coastal forests/Bogoria/Udzungwa

  Kenya/Tanzania

  1990–2001

  Kunene/Caprivi

  Namibia

  1998–2001

  Mamiraua/Varzea

  Brazil

  1991–2000

  Studies and research:

  Livestock-wildlife interactions

  Africa

  1997–2001

  575

  Illegal hunting in Serengeti NP

  Tanzania

  1997–2000

  Bushmeat in rural livelihoods of West Africa

  Ghana/Cameroon

  2000–02

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has held with representatives of African Governments regarding the trade in bushmeat. [25786]

  Hilary Benn
  We fund two bilateral projects in Cameroon related to the issue of bushmeat. Since 1995, the Mount Cameroon Project team has been working closely with the Cameroon Ministry of Environment and Forests to establish field level community management of timber and wildlife resources. The Community Forestry Development Project in Cameroon has been drawing on this experience to help communities manage their wildlife resources under the Forest Law. We also assisted with discussions with the Government of Cameroon over the preparation of an Emergency Action Plan following the 1999 Yaounde Heads of State Declaration, which 840W
  Community Forestry Development Project has been assisting government to develop protocols for community timber management; now that these are in place, the project team is working to establish community wildlife protocols for sustainable bushmeat harvesting. Both projects will finish this year, though we expect to contribute to a forestry sector programme in 2003, which will include a substantial community natural resource management element.

  In Ghana we are funding the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) to undertake research into bushmeat production, and particularly into the distribution of the value of bushmeat between producers and traders and how this affects poverty. This study will be completed in 2002, when we will consider the value of an extension into at least one other West African country in 2003–04, with estimated funding of £50,000 to £100,000 p.a.

  DFID also supports some 155 initiatives in developing countries to help them manage their forests sustainably, and is also working to help reduce illegal logging. These initiatives promote sustainable forest management and thereby should have an indirect positive impact on wildlife. DFID's main efforts are directed at combating illegal logging at source and addressing the other underlying causes of poor forest management, since most illegally harvested timber (up to 80 per cent, in some countries) is consumed domestically.

  included measures to ensure that an EC-funded road maintenance project did not lead to unsustainable harvesting of forest and wildlife resources.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has held with logging and mining companies operating in West and Central Africa that operate in areas of high bushmeat trade. [25807]

  Hilary Benn
  Through our country office in Cameroon we have been holding a series of ad hoc discussions with logging company representatives on how to promote sustainable forest management. These discussions recently culminated in a workshop to review a draft logging manual that pulls together the diverse pieces of legislation into a single coherent text, that the private sector and government can then apply.
  841W
  In the upcoming few months we will be financing further specific meetings with logging companies in the context of preparing for a Forest and Environment Sector Programme.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she has made of the impact Department-funded infrastructure projects in West and Central Africa have on the trade in bushmeat; [25819]

  (2) what mitigation measures are taken to prevent the trade in bushmeat on Department-funded infrastructure projects; and what assessment has been made of their effectiveness. [25815]

  Hilary Benn
  Our Department's procedures require that any new infrastructure project be screened for its potential impact on the environment. If initial screening indicates that the project could have significant impacts on the environment, then further investigation such as Environmental Analysis or a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be undertaken. All projects funded by this Department must comply with in-country guidelines or legislation. While we check the need for an EIA and the adequacy of them where they are required, the assessment itself is often financed and carried out by others.

  With regard to bushmeat, we held intensive discussions with the Government of Cameroon over the preparation of an Emergency Action Plan following the 1999 Yaounde Heads of State Declaration, which included measures to ensure that an EC-funded road maintenance project did not lead to unsustainable harvesting of forest and wildlife resources.

  Trypanosomiasis
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what her Department is doing to support research and development into new drugs to combat African trypanosomiasis; [25260]

  (2) what her Department is doing to ensure that treatment for African trypanosomiasis is more widely available in Africa; [25261]

  (3) what action her Department is taking to support efforts to raise awareness of trypanosomiasis in Africa. [25262]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that "sleeping sickness" or trypanosomiasis occurs in 36 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with 300,000 new cases annually, but poor data and diagnosis make it difficult to estimate the full extent of the problem. Recently there have been epidemic outbreaks in central and eastern Africa, especially in countries experiencing civil war and social upheaval.

  We are committed to improving the health of poor people in developing countries, including by improving access to essential drugs and vaccines to combat the diseases that most affect them. Part of this commitment is to make safe and effective essential drugs available at an affordable price. We look to WHO to help raise the awareness of this issue and to ensure that this is achieved through international collaborative efforts. We provide significant resources to WHO to support this work.
  842W
  WHO is currently working with Medecins Sans Frontieres and pharmaceutical manufacturers to ensure drug supplies for the treatment of sleeping sickness free of charge for the next five years, it will also increase surveillance teams and undertake research on better treatment regimens. We, along with other donors are working in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry and research organisations to support the development of new drugs. The Gates Foundation is currently funding the development and trials of a promising new drug for treatment.

  We also recognise the need to ensure that existing drugs are available, particularly to the poorest. This requires strengthening systems of delivery for quality assured drugs. We work with countries in improving systems to procure and distribute drugs, manage drug supplies and encourage appropriate drug use.

  Refugee Camps (Pakistan)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) the provision of aid to and (b) the standards in refugee camps in Pakistan. [25273]

  Hilary Benn
  In addition to those who have moved into Pakistan from Afghanistan since 11 September, Pakistan has been shouldering the burden of some 2 million refugees from Afghanistan for many years. Over the last 20 years, these refugees have been hosted in camps in Pakistan or absorbed into local communities. The majority of the camps in Pakistan pre-date the agreement of the international Sphere standards.

  The international community is giving Pakistan all possible support in coping with this burden and making progress towards improving standards in camps, including ensuring that all refugees are properly cared for.

  So far DFID has committed £3 million to UNHCR's operations, in response to the current crisis, to support its operations for refugees. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support. At the request of UNHCR, we have provided three relief flights to Iran and Pakistan transporting tents, shelter material and communications equipment. We have also provided a specialist site planner to UNHCR in Pakistan to assist with the setting up of new refugee camp sites. In addition we have provided £6 million to NGOs, much of which has been directed towards Afghans in neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, and £11 million to support communities in Pakistan most affected by the influx of refugees.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on food distribution in Afghanistan. [25271]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme (WFP) continues to make good progress in transporting food aid to Afghanistan. It delivered a record 116,000 metric tonnes of food during the month of December alone, using a network of some 2,000 trucks, as well as air and barge operations. It is working to keep routes open over the winter using all-weather vehicles and specialised snow teams.
  843W
  As part of its operations, WFP is also targeting vulnerable people in urban centres. Last month, some 1.3 million people received food rations in Kabul. Food aid will be distributed to a further 0.25 million people in Herat this week. There are, however still pockets of insecurity where access is difficult, particularly in the south and east, around Kandahar and Jalalabad.

  Displaced People (Tora Bora)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the number of displaced people in Tora Bora region; and what assistance is being provided to those people. [25272]

  Hilary Benn
  Continuing insecurity in the Tora Bora area means that it is difficult to provide accurate figures. However, UN agencies and NGOs estimate that between 1,000 and 2,000 families have moved from the area to stay with relatives in neighbouring districts, including Jalalabad city.

  United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs are providing the displaced in those districts with food, shelter and other essential supplies.

  Palestine
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what proportion of her Department's(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral spending in the Palestinian territories goes towards furthering peace and security in the region; [25270]

  (2) how much of her Department's (a) funds disbursed though the European Union and (b) bilateral aid budget go to the Palestinian territories. [25269]

  Hilary Benn
  In the current financial year we expect to spend about £14 million bilaterally to support development in the Palestinian territories. Our multilateral contributions comprise: £25 million in 2001 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA); 5 per cent, of the World Bank's resources (about £13 million since 1994); and 17 per cent, (about £30 million in 2001) of the European Commission's development budget which includes our share of the EC contribution to UNRWA. All these efforts are designed to contribute towards peace and security in the region by helping to build capacity in the Palestinian Authority, and meeting the basic needs of the local people.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) charities and (b) NGOs she funds which work in the Palestinian territories. [25268]
  844W
  Hilary Benn
  It is not possible to distinguish precisely between NGOs and charities. We currently fund development projects with the following organisations:

  Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  Save the Children Fund

  Gaza Community Mental Health

  Oxfam

  Palestinian Hydrology Group

  Healthlink Worldwide

  Tamer Institute for Community Education

  Teacher Creativity Centre

  Islamic Relief

  World University Service

  Middle East Non Violence and Democracy

  World Vision

  Multipurpose Resource Centre

  Near East Foundation

  Palestinian Agriculture Relief Committees

  Islah Charitable Organisation

  Bethlehem Arab Society for Rehabilitation

  Ard El Insan Organisation

  Palestine Red Crescent Society

  National Foundation for Investment and Development

  Sunbula Organisation

  National Society for the Visually Handicapped

  Family Defence Society

  Palestinian Law Society.

  Transnational Crimes
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to developing countries wishing to(a) ratify and (b) implement the UN convention against organised trans-national crimes. [25264]

  Hilary Benn
  We are working with the international community and governments in many countries to address the poverty caused by weaknesses in the areas covered by the convention. We give support to: international measures against the trafficking of women and children, for example, assistance and training for withdrawing them from such exploitation and reintegrating those affected into the community; strengthening legislative measures against corruption; improving controls against money laundering (including regional and international collaborative mechanisms); developing mechanisms for asset seizure and recovery (including international co-operation); assisting countries in accessing mutual legal assistance from the UK; and helping to build capacity in enforcement authorities (in particular, the judiciary, the police and customs services).

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department provides to displaced people in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia. [25267]
  845W
  Hilary Benn
  Since March 2001 we have committed £6 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their operations in Ethiopia. This support includes assistance to internally displaced persons in Tigray.

  Cities Alliance
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has(a) allocated and (b) given to Cities Alliance. [25265]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has supported the Cities Alliance since its inception. We have allocated £700,000 per annum for the core budget over the three years starting in 2000. The first year's allocation has been fully utilised. To date the total amount given to Cities Alliance is £1,050,000. In addition we have made provision for some non-core technical assistance in connection with Cities Alliance.

  European Council (Laeken)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department had at the European Council's meeting in Laeken; and if she will make a statement. [25274]

  Hilary Benn
  The European Council meeting at Laeken on 14–15 December 2001 was attended by The Prime Minister. The conclusions of the meeting were deposited in the House Library and The Prime Minister made a statement to the House on 17 December.

  Paragraphs 53–56 of the conclusions deal with development co-operation. The UK strongly supports EU work to improve the co-ordination of European and international development policies, as a contribution to the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development in March and the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development in September. We also support EU efforts to encourage progress towards the target of providing 0.7 per cent, of gross national income as official development assistance. We are prepared to examine the proposal to establish a Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank but believe that the first step in improving the effectiveness of EU financial support to countries of the Mediterranean region must be to deliver funds from the EC's MEDA programme more effectively.

  Ebola
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken in response to(a) the recent outbreak of ebola in Gabon, and (b) the cases reported in Kenya, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. [25266]

  Hilary Benn
  We have supported the World Health Organisation (WHO) in building up capacity to respond effectively to ebola fever by supporting the creation of the global outbreak alert and response network under which outbreaks such as these are dealt with.

  An international team from the network is currently working closely with teams from the respective Ministries of Health in the countries affected.

  Great Apes Survival Project
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is offering to the Great Apes Survival Project. [25806]

  Hilary Benn
  The main UK Government support for the Great Apes Survival Project (GrASP) will be provided through the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Our Department's work on poverty reduction and the promotion of sustainable forest management in range states is expected to make a positive contribution to ape conservation. To this end we will continue to liaise closely with United Nations Environment programme, DEFRA and other GrASP stakeholders.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if an environmental impact assessment is carried out on every infrastructure project funded by her Department. [25816]

  Hilary Benn
  Our procedures require that all projects are screened for their potential impact on the environment. If initial screening indicates that an activity could have significant impacts on the environment, further investigation such as Environmental Analysis or a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be undertaken. While our Department checks the need for an EIA and the adequacy of them where they are required, the assessment itself is often financed and carried out by others. Where we are funding the improvement of an existing enterprise or facility, an environmental audit would be undertaken rather than an EIA. All projects funded by our Department must comply with in-country guidelines or legislation. These may require an EIA to be carried out.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the future delivery of United Kingdom humanitarian aid in Sierra Leone; and if she will make a statement. [25412]

  Hilary Benn
  We stand ready to respond quickly to new humanitarian requests from the UN and other agencies as they emerge. We have committed £12 million for humanitarian activities in Sierra Leone and neighbouring countries over the last 18 months.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of links between Sierra Leone and Liberia and the effect of these on the delivery of United Kingdom humanitarian aid; and if she will make a statement. [25410]

  Hilary Benn
  Formal diplomatic links between Sierra Leone and Liberia have improved of late, and both countries remain members of the Mano River Union. The state of the relationship does not affect our ability to deliver humanitarian assistance to either county. We have committed £12 million to humanitarian activities in Sierra Leone and other countries in the region over the last 18 months.
  847W
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what level of representation by her Department in Sierra Leone she considers appropriate. [25409]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's day-to-day representational interests in Sierra Leone are looked after by the British high commission in Freetown, which is headed by a senior-grade high commissioner drawn from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Development Section is headed by an experienced DFID officer. We consider this level of representation to be appropriate for our needs.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will respond to the request from the Army to have a senior official from her Department at the same senior decision-making level as the Army officers in the field in Sierra Leone. [25414]

  Hilary Benn
  We have received no formal request. Officials discussed the proposal informally with UK military representatives in Sierra Leone last year, but concluded that there was not a strong case for having a dedicated senior grade DFID person posted to Sierra Leone.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the need for her Department's officials in-country to have equivalent decision-making powers and be at the equivalent decision-making level as military and diplomatic counterparts. [25411]

  Hilary Benn
  The heads of department for International Development offices overseas have substantial delegated authority. In some cases this may exceed that of their diplomatic and military counterparts. These posts are graded using standard job evaluation, relying on job weight analysis. It would not be possible or appropriate to apply any general policy based on equivalence of authority, the nature and comparability of which vary greatly from post to post.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to link future aid to Vietnam to improvements in human rights. [25294]

  Clare Short
  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out every person's entitlement to social, economic, political and civil rights. Our work to support the reduction of poverty is focused on improving the human rights of the poor. Our expanding programme in Vietnam reflects the Vietnam Government's strong track record in reducing poverty from 74 per cent, of the population in 1984 to 37 per cent, in 1998. We are working to address the root causes of disadvantage, for example through rural livelihoods programmes in areas of remaining high poverty and large ethnic minority populations, and through work in primary education aimed at disadvantaged groups.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many complaints have 848W
  been reported in her Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25339]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Angola
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance is provided to Angola; what proportion is used to promote reconciliation in that country; and if she will make a statement. [25751]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development's bilateral aid budget to Angola for this financial year (2000–02) is £3.7 million, of which £2.5 million has been earmarked for development assistance. Support is mainly provided through international NGOs, to encourage trust, collaboration and partnerships between community organisations and local government. Such community co-operation and organisation contributes toward the strengthening of civil society, which is a prerequisite to future peace and stability in Angola.

  Our major commitment to Angola is the Luanda Urban Poverty Programme (£6.65 million over three years). It began in July 1999, and aims to improve the economic livelihoods and access to basic services for the urban poor. In addition, it will enhance the capacity of communities and national NGOs to work with local government to meet basic needs.

  We also provide limited support to the Government of Angola to assist with the development of its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).

  In addition to our bilateral aid programme, the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) is supporting civil society-strengthening programmes in Angola. In Luanda we are implementing a £250,000 project that will strengthen the capacity of local NGOs to disseminate human rights and peace-building information. The CSCF is also supporting peace-building and democratisation through raising the awareness of crucial target groups (teachers, local leaders, community workers, journalists, etc.) about human rights, the rule of law and promoting citizenship.

  In 2000, EU aid to Angola totalled £26.05 million. The UK contributed 19 per cent, toward this total (£4.95 million). The figure for 2001 is not yet available.

  Tanzania
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the World Bank and Oxfam regarding the impact of the pending sale of a military air control system by BAE Systems to the Government of Tanzania on that country's economic development; and if she will make a statement. [25457]

  Clare Short
  In my capacity as UK Governor of the World bank I am fully aware of bank concerns about the proposed sale of the BAE air traffic control system on the development of Tanzania. The concern relates to the system's technical applicability and value for money. These concerns were discussed with donors and undertakings made by the Government of Tanzania prior
  849W
  to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank board meetings at the end of November 2001. The Government of Tanzania undertook to work with the International Civil Aviation Organisation in identifying Tanzania's civil aviation requirements and to explore possible modification of the contract with BAE to meet these requirements. On this basis the bank and fund boards agreed that Tanzania would reach Completion Point under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative at their November meetings.

  I raised the World Bank concerns with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for decisions on export licence applications.

  I have received no representations from Oxfam.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of rent increases in 2003–04 as a result of the formula rent on the pension credit arrangements to be brought in in 2003. [20839]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the Pension Credit, which replaces the minimum income guarantee from October 2003, all housing benefit recipients in the social sector will, as now, have any increases in their rent paid for in full.

  In addition, DWP Ministers have announced that the starting income threshold for housing benefit will be raised in line with the pension credit, so that no pensioner loses housing benefit as a result of the more generous pension credit.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 102W, for what reason it is not possible to estimate what cost might be involved if he decides not to proceed with PPP for the London Underground. [25132]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is too early at this stage to say how much grant London Underground would require if the Tube modernisation plans were not to proceed. However, it is possible to state the compensation that London Underground has agreed to pay bidders if it should cancel the competitions for reasons other than value for money. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 19 December 2001 Official Report, column 503W.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the system-wide average mean distance between failure figures for trains operated by London Underground for each year between (a) 1990–91 and 1993–94 and (b) the latest figure for 2001–02. [23269]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground who inform me that the system-wide average mean distance for 1993–94 and 2001–02 is 4,146 km and 6,472 km respectively. Unfortunately 850W
  London Underground would need to undertake detailed archive research to obtain comparative data for 1990–91 and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a detailed breakdown of the 48 per cent, of costs not subjected to sensitivity analysis in the assessment by London Underground Limited of the PPP and private sector comparison; and if he will make a statement. [24891]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is carrying out a thorough evaluation of the value for money of bids, including a wide range of sensitivity tests. I understand that London Underground intends to publish this evaluation, but not until it has concluded its negotiations with bidders. To publish the evaluation any earlier would reveal London Underground's negotiating position and so undermine its ability to achieve best value.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reliability of the Circle line. [25385]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Day to day management of the Circle line is a matter for London Underground. This line, like other parts of the underground, has suffered historic under-investment and the service provided has encountered problems arising both from this and from staff shortages which affected the reliability of operations particularly in 2001–02.1 am satisfied that these problems are in the process of being rectified in the short term, in particular through London Underground's programme of work to improve reliability across the network. In the medium and long term, the problems of under-investment will be resolved by the large-scale investment that will be brought into the system through our tube modernisation plans, which will deliver increased capacity, improved reliability and higher quality.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many days in 2001 platform announcements were made advising passengers awaiting Circle line services to take a District line train and change elsewhere because of failure to adhere to the timetable. [25386]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that this information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the cost of maintaining the Charing Cross branch of the Jubilee line since it was closed to passenger traffic. [25384]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that the Jubilee line track between Green Park and Charing Cross and the old Jubilee line areas of Charing Cross station are maintained at an annual cost of £155,000.

  Although the track is not used by customers, it is still part of the underground's operational capability and is used by Jubilee line trains, eg for turning trains when necessary.
  851W

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote III, Environment, Transport and the Regions, subcategories(a) 1 Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, planning and countryside and wildlife, England, (b) 2 Roads, local transport and transport industries and (c) 4 Local government: England; and if he will make a statement. [24110]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Full details of outturn against 2000–01 voted provision will be published in the appropriation accounts to be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January 2002. The departmental resource account on an accruals basis will also be presented to the House of Commons before 31 January. Updated estimates of the outturn for departmental expenditure limits in 2000–01 on an accrual basis were published in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), Table B16.

  Bull Bars
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment the Government have made of(a) the benefits associated with the fitting of bull bars to vehicles in the UK and (b) the cost of removing bull bars from vehicles fitted with such bars in the UK; [24291]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact the European Commission recommendations on safer car fronts will have on deaths and serious injuries associated with bull bars. [24290]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A draft regulatory appraisal was prepared in 1997 in connection with a consultation on possible national action on bull bars. Although this identified the benefits of removing bull bars, it did not identify benefits associated with fitting them. The cost to owners of removing bull bars was estimated at £110 per vehicle, being £35 for physical removal and £75 related to assumptions linked to loss of utility.

  We have not made a separate assessment of the benefits expected from the bull bar aspect of the European Commission's proposal on pedestrian protection.

  Mobile Phones
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the number of people using mobile phones while driving, since the publication of the White Paper "Tomorrow's Road—safer for everyone". [24297]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Three observational surveys of mobile phones use while driving have been carried out for the Department by TRL Ltd. The latest survey, carried out in October this year, showed that 2 per cent, of the 27,900 drivers observed were using a mobile phone. 85 per cent, of the phones observed in use were hand-held.
  852W
  The surveys are carried out at road junctions at the same time as the seat belt wearing surveys and may not be representative of the extent of mobile phone use by drivers on all roads. Proposals for more detailed surveys are currently being considered.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish rules of conduct for stock transfer ballots that include rules to govern the issue of lists of tenants who have yet to vote. [24435]

  Ms Keeble
  Stock transfer ballots are carried out by independent organisations who have their own rules and procedures in place to ensure that the ballot is conducted properly. It would not therefore be appropriate for the Department to publish rules of conduct.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the legal status of offer documents sent to council tenants prior to a ballot on the transfer of housing to a registered social landlord is; and to what extent the offer made is legally binding on the new landlord. [24434]

  Ms Keeble
  The offer document forms the first stage of the formal consultation requirements set out in section 106 of and Schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985 (as inserted by section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986), which a local authority must follow prior to a housing stock transfer. The offer document should contain full details of the transfer proposals and the implications for tenants. Tenants have 28 days during which to comment. The local authority may then revise the proposals to reflect these comments. If, following a positive tenants' ballot, the transfer subsequently goes ahead, the promises made in the offer document are incorporated into the transfer agreement between the local authority and the new landlord which is a legally binding contract.

  Council Tax
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the change in Band D council tax in the last four years. [24622]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the last four years, English local authorities have set average Band D council tax increases of 8.6 per cent. (1998–99), 6.8 per cent. (1999–2000), 6.1 per cent. (2000–01) and 6.4 per cent. (2001–02). Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers.

  Taxis
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries were caused by (i) taxi drivers and (ii) mini-cab drivers in each of the last 10 years. [25123]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of people(a) killed and(b) seriously injured in road accidents involving taxis in each of the last 10 years is shown in the table. It is not

  853W
  possible to give the proportion of these accidents which were caused by the taxi driver. Information on mini-cabs is not available.

  Casualties in road accidents involving taxis—Great Britain

  Severity of casualty

  Accident year

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1991

  36

  599

  1992

  31

  578

  1993

  17

  554

  1994

  32

  665

  1995

  31

  616

  1996

  31

  564

  1997

  34

  524

  1998

  31

  629

  1999

  39

  646

  2000

  50

  600

  In 1994 the definition of taxi was changed to include all vehicles registered as hackney carriages, regardless of construction.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many disabled facilities grants have been made, and how much has been spent on average in each of the past five years. [24953]

  Ms Keeble
  The number and average value of disabled facilities grants paid in England over the past five financial years are given in the table. These grants were made under section 1 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and section 101 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to private owners and tenants.

  Numbers paid

  Average grant paid (£)

  1996–97

  23,263

  4,270

  1997–98

  23,917

  4,200

  1998–99

  24,135

  4,480

  1999–2000

  25,189

  4,880

  2000–01

  27,655

  4,650

  Chemicals
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the chemical industry on the implementation of the proposed amendments to the Chemicals (Hazard and Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. [25306]

  Dr. Whitehead
  While there have been no formal discussions at ministerial level, officials at the Health and Safety Executive have had extensive discussions with the chemical industry and with the relevant trade associations about the Regulations.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the time scale for companies in the chemicals industry to implement the proposed amendments to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. [25729]
  854W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Commission has recently completed a public consultation exercise on these Regulations with a view to introducing them in the first half of 2002.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received from companies in the chemical industry about the impact of the proposed amendments to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. [25308]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Commission has recently completed a three-month consultation exercise on these regulations and has received some 45 responses which are currently being analysed. I also received a letter about the proposed regulations from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on behalf of a constituent.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the costs to the chemistry industry of implementing the proposed amendments to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. [25307]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Commission's recent consultative document, a copy of which is in the Library, contained an initial estimate of a range of costs and sought further information from consultees.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with Westminster city council concerning the recovery of the money due from Dame Shirley Porter and David Weeks; and if he will make a statement. [25382]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No such discussions have taken place. Recovery of the surcharge is a matter for Westminster city council.

  A14
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Highways Agency is(a) to start and (b) to finish its review of the plans on the A14 road improvements; when he will start consultation on the plans; whether the proposed public transport element of the plans will cover from Huntingdon to Cambridge; when he will complete the public transport element of the plans; and whether he will provide financing to complete the road element of the plans. [25147]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Highways Agency to carry out preparatory work on the major A14 improvements included in the Preferred Plan of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study with a view to an early entry to the Targeted Programme of Improvements. The Highways Agency will begin this work in January 2002 with the aim of finishing it within six months. Public consultation on the route can be expected within 12 months of the scheme's entry into the Targeted Programme of Improvements.
  855W
  We have endorsed the general approach that the public transport elements of the Preferred Plan should be in place before extra road capacity is provided. The Preferred Plan proposed that a guided bus system should extend from Cambridge through to the centre of Huntingdon, though capacity on existing roads to allow a dedicated bus corridor from St. Ives to Huntingdon would only be available following the opening of the new A14 bypass. We have encouraged Cambridgeshire county council as the local transport authority to come forward with a full appraisal of the guided bus project within six months. Its completion will depend upon an order under Transport and Works Act 1992 powers.

  The 10-Year Transport Plan provides the resources for implementing decisions arising from the multi-modal studies.

  Social Housing
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 225 W, on social housing, if he will list the sources of funding for the remaining new social housing new build units. [25539]

  Ms Keeble
  98.71 per cent, of social housing new build units approved for building in 2000– 01 were funded by a combination of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme; public subsidy from a body such as a local authority or health authority (which may consist of free or discounted land or cash contributions); private sector borrowing; and registered social landlords' own reserves.

  European Transport Policy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the European Union White Paper, "European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide". [25365]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission published its White Paper "European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide" on 12 December 2001. The White Paper itself has no legislative or executive force at this stage but it indicates areas where the Commission intends to initiate action over the next few years.

  The Government set out their initial view on the White Paper in an Explanatory Memorandum (11932/01) to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees. To help inform the Government's position further, the Department launched a formal consultation exercise on 1 November 2001, seeking views on the White Paper and its potential impacts upon the transport sector from the transport industry, the devolved Administrations and other interested parties. The deadline for responses is 31 January 2002.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many written representations he has received in the last 12 months from people in the Wealden constituency expressing support for an elected regional assembly in the South East of England. [25615]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None.

  Housing Fitness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was of the development and piloting of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and of version 1 of the guidance between when the Legal Research Institute at the University of Warwick was commissioned to undertake this work; when the report on the system's development and the guidance were published; and what is the estimated cost of the further research projects designed to refine the system due to be completed during 2002. [25544]

  Ms Keeble
  The development and piloting of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System cost about £740,000 including VAT from the appointment of the University of Warwick in January 1998 up to publication, in July 2000, of the Report on Development and Version 1 of the Guidance. The estimated cost of further research and evaluation from August 2000 until December 2002 is £560,000 including VAT.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local authorities subject to capping in the local government finance settlement; the amount forgone by each of those authorities and the average reduction to all local authorities if the cap had not been introduced; and if he will make a statement. [25748]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We did not use our reserve capping powers in 2001–02. We will consider the position for 2002–03 when local authorities have set their budgets.

  Corporate Governance
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the methodology used to carry out corporate governance reviews of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [25741]

  Dr. Whitehead
  For the purposes of inspecting corporate governance arrangements in local authorities, these are defined as:The systems and processes by which local authorities lead, direct and control their functions and relate to their communities and partners.

  This definition and the framework to inspect these arrangements are based on the framework for developing a local code of corporate governance published in 2001 jointly by the Chartered Institute for Public Finance Accountants (CIPFA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). This has five main themes: Community Focus; Structures and Processes; Risk Management and Internal Control; Service Delivery Arrangements; and Standards of Conduct. In addition, a corporate governance inspection will address other, cross-cutting elements or indicators of corporate performance, such as people and their relationships, the role of Information and Communications Technology, e-services and political and managerial leadership, among others.

  Corporate Governance inspections build directly on the methodological approach developed for best value inspections of local authority services, including the

  857W
  collection of evidence from an assessment of key council documents, interviews with key personnel, group discussions with staff, the public and stakeholders. Inspections last one week or two weeks, in lower and upper tier authorities respectively and as with best value service inspections, councils are briefed throughout the inspection process and have the opportunity to respond to the inspection findings, presented to them shortly after the on-site phase has ended, and on the draft report.

  Corporate Governance inspection teams will generally comprise one from each of the following personnel:

  Managing Inspector (a senior inspector from the Audit Commission)

  Best Value Inspector (from the Audit Commission)

  District Auditor/Audit Manager, or alternative financial specialist

  Chief Executive (or ex-CEX), or senior manager in a council

  Council Leader, or senior member

  Benefit Fraud Inspector

  Ofsted Inspector (in inspections of upper tier authorities)

  Social Services Inspector (in inspections of upper tier authorities).

  The Local Government White Paper, published on 11 December, will require all upper tier authorities to be subject to a comprehensive performance assessment. These assessments will be informed by the experience of using the corporate governance inspection methodology.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities who have(a) completed, (b) are undergoing and (c) will start in the year to the end of April 2002 a corporate governance review; and if he will make a statement. [25738]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Hackney, Walsall, Hillingdon, Enfield

  (b) Corby, Mendip, Bromsgrove, Rotherham, Bristol

  (c) Torbay, Merton, Rossendale, Hull, Harlow.

  The Audit Commission is finalising its wider approach to the comprehensive assessment of performance in councils, initially for all 150 upper tier authorities in England, as required by the recent Local Government White Paper. It will use the experience from these early corporate governance inspections to develop an approach that enables inspectors—including experienced practitioners from local government—to assess key features of corporate governance arrangements.

  Social and Economic Regeneration
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements are in place to ensure joined up working to deliver the social regeneration and economic regeneration in the most deprived communities; and if he will make a statement. [25523]

  Ms Keeble
  The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) was established to spearhead delivery of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and to bring a joined up approach to neighbourhood renewal. NRU's staff have been recruited from a range of Government Departments, as well as from the other parts of the public, voluntary, community and private sectors.
  858W
  At ministerial level, the work of the NRU is overseen by a Cabinet-level Ministerial Committee, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. This Committee will work closely with a Steering Group of Permanent Secretaries.

  At regional level, Government Offices (GOs) join up Government policy in the regions and act as a voice for the regions in central Government. GOs have particular responsibilities for neighbourhood renewal, including helping the NRU to oversee local renewal strategies in their region.

  Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) are the Government's umbrella mechanism for linking local service providers with local authorities, business and the community and voluntary sector to provide a strategic view of local priorities. LSPs will prepare the local neighbourhood renewal strategy, which will clearly set out a local strategic framework for action that responds to neighbourhood needs and puts them in the context of the area as a whole.

  Parish Polls
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to restrict the subjects raised in parish polls to matters for which the council organising the poll has responsibility. [25616]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Local Government Act 1972 already restricts the subjects raised in parish polls to questions, raised at a parish meeting, on parish affairs.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase the threshold of the numbers of voters required to request a parish poll in large parish and town councils; and if he will make a statement. [25401]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As part of our initiatives, following the Rural White Paper (Cm 4909), to strengthen local democracy at parish level we will be reviewing the operation of parish polls including the threshold of the number of voters required to request a poll in large parish and town councils. Any change to the current requirements will require primary legislation.

  Enron
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 800W, on Enron, if new ownership of the former Enron power station at Teesside qualifies for investigation. [25437]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The change of ownership of a company is not, normally, a prompt for an investigation by Health and Safety Executive Inspectors. Any consideration and decision concerning whether or not to carry out an inspection or investigation would depend on the circumstances of the change of ownership including the likely effect on the operation of the plant.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list each(a) public relations and (b) advertising firm that has been

  859W
  employed by his Department and its predecessor since 1997, indicating the subject area and campaign they worked on in each case. [25710]

  Mr. Byers
  The following public relations and advertising companies have been employed by DETR/DTLR since 1997:

  (a) Public relations:

  Fishburn Hedges: "are you doing your bit?" environmental publicity campaign

  The Forster Company: Noise Awareness day

  Charles Bailey: Mayor and Assembly for London

  Central Office of Information: Fire safety.

  (a) Advertising:

  Abbot Mead Vickers/BBDO: Road Safety and "are you doing your bit?" campaigns

  D'Arcy: road safety, focussing primarily on education for children

  WCRS: Mayor and Assembly for London

  BDH TWBA: Quality Mark scheme

  The Leith Agency: Rough Sleepers Unit's Change a Life campaign

  Ogilvy and Mather: Foot and Mouth Public information

  Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper: Fire Safety.

  Councillor Complaints
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what is the average length of time taken by district auditors to respond to complaints by councillors in the latest year for which figures are available; [25709]

  (2) how many cases of complaints from councillors to district auditors are outstanding; and how many of these have been outstanding since (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [25708]

  Mr. Byers
  The Audit Commission does not distinguish in its monitoring of matters raised with auditors either between statutory objections and other matters, nor between those raised by councillors and members of the public. The total number of matters raised with, and disposed of by, auditors in any one year is in excess of 100. The majority of all such matters tend to relate to small sums of money in local councils. The Audit Commission does monitor complex and high-value audit cases. There are currently 11 such cases. In six of these the auditors' investigations have been ongoing for more than two years. In the other five cases, the investigation has been on-going for less than two years.

  Local Government Settlement
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the GLA precept on the council tax of London boroughs in reaching the local government settlement for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [25707]

  Mr. Byers
  London boroughs set their own council tax, to which a GLA precept is added when bills are sent to council taxpayers in London.
  860W
  The London boroughs and the GLA should seek the views of their local electorate and taxpayers on the trade-off between changes in tax and changes in service levels.

  From next spring, council taxpayers in London will be able to see clearly by how much their council tax has changed for their borough and for the GLA. This will be shown up-front on the bill, not hidden away in the leaflet.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 137, what impact the change in grant to shire districts will have on the overall local government settlement; and from which budget the additional funding required will be taken; [25842]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137, if he will set out the adjustments which will be made to the 2001–02 baseline for shire districts and the basis of the new calculation; [25841]

  (3) pursuant to his oral answer of 18 December 2001, Official Report, column 137, if he will list (a) the alternative baseline for 2001–02 for each shire district, (b) the increase in grant based on 2.3 per cent, increase on the (i) original baseline and (ii) revised. [25840]

  Mr. Byers
  In my answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137 I announced that I would introduce an alternative baseline for 2001–02 which, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible and that, in order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent, increase for shire districts, I would ensure that all shire districts received a minimum grant increase of whichever increase is the greater—2.3 per cent, on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent, on this alternative baseline.

  I will provide further details as part of the final settlement announcement towards the end of January once the consultation period has ended.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 168, if he will set out his reasons for introducing a minimum level of grant increase for the Greater London Authority; and what assessment he has made of the impact of that decision. [25843]

  Mr. Byers
  In both 2000–01 and 2001–02 the Greater London authority was guaranteed a minimum level of grant increase of 0 per cent, under the Central Support Protection Grant scheme, as were other authorities without education and social services responsibilities.

  For 2001–02 we replaced the Central Support Protection Grant for authorities with education and social services responsibilities by the floor and ceiling damping mechanism which operates directly on the amount of Revenue Support Grant payable to an authority.

  For 2002–03 we have extended floor and ceiling damping to cover all local authorities who are entitled to receive Revenue Support Grant, and have also raised the minimum level of grant increase for authorities without education and social services responsibilities from 0 per cent, to 2.3 per cent.
  861W
  Providing a minimum level of grant increase, based on a like-for-like comparison of grants in 2002–03 with what they would have been in 2001–02 if the transfers and responsibilities applying in 2002–03 had been in place in 2001–02, provides stability and so helps local authorities to plan effectively. The floor and ceiling damping mechanism is fairer and more transparent than the damping previously provided through the Central Support Protection Grant scheme.

  Sewage Workers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to monitor health and safety standards for sewage workers. [25446]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is responsible for monitoring health and safety standards for those at work, including sewage workers.

  HSE's Utilities National Group, is represented on Water UK's national health and safety committee and contributed to "Water Ahead" a joint strategic plan for improving health and safety in the industry.

  HSE is also working with Water UK on "Clearwater 2010", the industry's project to improve occupational health over the next 10 years. This forms a part of this industry's contribution to the Government's initiatives to reduce accidents and occupational ill health problems over the next 10 years, namely "Revitalising Health and Safety" and "Securing Health Together".

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will encourage police and highways authorities to post on their websites details of the location of speed cameras; and if he will make a statement. [25388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Handbook of Rules for entry to the netting-off camera funding scheme provides advice on publicising all aspects of camera operation locally. The development and use of local websites is one recommended local communications vehicle.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made by the Social Exclusion Unit to reduce the number of rough sleepers. [23455]

  Ms Keeble
  The Rough Sleepers Unit was established in April 1999 following a recommendation of the Social Exclusion Unit in their 1998 report into rough sleeping. The unit was tasked by the Prime Minister to reduce the number of people sleeping rough in England to as near to zero as possible and by at least two thirds by 2002.

  The Rough Sleepers Unit published its strategy on tackling rough sleeping, "Coming in from the Cold", in December 1999. The strategy outlined a raft of new policies and services to deliver the target, which are now all in place across England. These services include helping people sleeping rough on the streets with drug, alcohol and mental health problems; helping former rough sleepers rebuild their lives through education, training and
  862W
  employment; and preventing a new generation of rough sleepers particularly those leaving care, the armed forces and prison.

  The Prime Minister announced on 3 December 2001 that his target had been met and figures show that there are now 532 people sleeping rough in England, compared with around 1,850 in June 1998. This represents a reduction of 71 per cent.

  The success has been due to the RSU's strategy and the hard work of key partners in central and local government and the voluntary and private sector. The RSU's second progress report, published in summer 2001, shows the significant impact the "Coming in from the Cold" strategy has made to individual lives.

  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 3 December that a new Homelessness Directorate would be established in January to bring together and invigorate exiting work to help homeless people and to develop new work to prevent homelessness and investigate its underlying causes. The directorate will also continue to help vulnerable people sleeping on the nation's streets to come inside, help people to rebuild their lives and prevent tomorrow's rough sleepers from hitting the streets in the first place.

  The new directorate will be responsible for taking forward the Government's strategic framework for homelessness in the new year.

  Railtrack
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to encourage Railtrack to reverse its decision to withdraw from the redevelopment of Gourock station. [25434]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not taken any such steps. The future funding of redevelopment of Gourock station is under discussion between Railtrack, the Scottish Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether the proposed company limited by guarantee will need to secure adequate commercial loan facilities to enable it to repay the commercial loan agreement between the Department and the Administrator simultaneously with the ending of the Railtrack administration; [24174]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1014W, on Railtrack, from what potential sources the proposed company limited by guarantee would make a payment to the administrator on the final day of administration; and if he will make a statement. [24254]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is for the CLG bid team, established under the sponsorship of the Strategic Rail Authority, to put a proposal to the Administrator. The repayment of the commercial loan from the Department to Railtrack plc in administration is a matter which all potential bidders will need to address in their proposals. It is for the Administrator to put a proposal for a transfer scheme before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State based on any propositions he receives.
  863W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report,column 1014W on Railtrack, if the Government's policy is to permit the disposal of Railtrack assets to secure the funds listed. [24255]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cash advances of £1,228 million referred to in my answer of 13 December 2001, on Railtrack, are to be recouped from new debt, not from the realisation of assets.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to bring forward proposals to establish a company limited by guarantee to take over the functions previously undertaken by Railtrack. [24138]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The timing of a proposal to the Administrator is a matter for the CLG bid team, established under the sponsorship of the Strategic Rail Authority. It is for the Administrator to put a proposal for a transfer scheme before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State based on any propositions he receives. All potential bidders will be aware that both the Administrator and the Government are keen to keep the period of administration as short as possible.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps Railtrack plc is taking to ensure that structural faults, with particular reference to the masonry of the Glottenham Lane overpass in Robertsbridge, are identified and repaired on the south eastern rail network. [22923]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Railtrack engineers will inspect the relevant overpass as soon as possible.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many signal failures were reported in November on(a) the UK rail network, (b) Railtrack's southern zone, (c) the south eastern network and (d) Kent and Sussex; what the figures were for November 1997; and what steps have been taken to ensure that faults are identified and repaired before serious incidents arise. [22924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Railtrack that the comparative information requested is not available.

  Passenger Rail Franchises
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many passenger rail franchises he estimates will be contracted in line with the original timetable for renewals. [22896]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has reviewed its plans for renewing franchises in light of the Secretary of State's Policy Statement on Passenger Rail Franchising. It announced its new franchising programme on 19 December 2001.

  Railways (Winter Estimates)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the change in gross provision for other railways in the winter estimates. [24122]
  864W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The change in gross provision for other railways in the Winter Supplementary Estimates 2001–02 is explained in Section lvii on page 8 of those estimates.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the change in gross provision for the Strategic Rail Authority in the winter estimates; [24121]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the increased provision in section lxviii of the winter estimates. [24120]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The change in gross provision for the Strategic Rail Authority in the winter supplementary estimates 2001–02 is explained in section lxviii on page 9 of those estimates.

  European Directive (Railways)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the implications of Directive 91/440/EEC for the future structure of railways; [24173]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implications of Directive 2001/14/EC on the future management of the UK rail infrastructure.[24172]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Directive 91/440/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC, and Directive 2001/14/EC include a number of requirements concerning the relationships between the member state, managers of railway infrastructure, railway undertakings and a regulatory/appeal body. The Government are taking these fully into account in decisions on the future management of railway infrastructure and any changes to railway regulation in the UK.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Freight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representation he has made of the European Commission concerning the impact on intra-community trade of the SNCF restriction of channel tunnel rail freight services. [24098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As a result of contacts made directly by the freight operators, the European Commission has twice asked the French Government in the context of Regulation 2679/98 on the free movement of goods, what steps they are taking to resolve the problems caused by people entering the channel tunnel which has led to the disruption of freight traffic through it. The Government are monitoring developments and urging the French to take all necessary steps to resolve this issue.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who has responsibility for(a) setting and (b) enforcing the maximum capacity of railway carriages in order to protect public safety. [24874]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for monitoring overcrowding on commuter services rests with the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). The responsibility for the day to day safety, welfare and convenience of passengers using the railway rests with railway operating companies.
  865W
  There are no Health and Safety Regulations or absolute limits set on the numbers of passengers who may be carried as all rolling stock is designed to run safely at maximum capacity. Some train operating companies are required to carry out passenger counts on commuters to meet the passengers in excess of capacity (PIXC) limits set by the SRA.

  Rail Privatisation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the analysis that his Department has undertaken regarding the proportion of the cost and efficiency gains envisaged when the railways were first privatised that were eventually realised. [24910]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not undertaken such an analysis.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the minimum time is after which a newly recruited train driver would be permitted to drive a train(a) at present and (b) five years ago; in each case, whether they would be supervised; and for how long. [24992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current requirements recommend between 26 and 29 weeks of driver training before a newly recruited train driver is permitted to drive a train. The driver training period includes a minimum of 225 hours of practical driving under the constant supervision of a qualified instructor driver. Once a driver is deemed competent a two-year supervisory regime is put in place.

  Five years ago, companies were training drivers on the basis of British Rail's training programme. In terms of duration, this programme was slightly shorter than now, although the basic components were similar to now.

  Rail Services (Scotland)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what representations he has received relating to the vertical integration of rail services and the railway network within Scotland; [24139]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding vertical integration of sections of the rail system. [25914]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Representations have been received both for and against vertical integration from a number of train operating companies and in general correspondence. It is clear that the apparently simple notion of vertical integration subsumes a range of options about which there is no consensus in the rail industry or elsewhere, whether in regard to Scotland or otherwise.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications were received by her Department from companies based in the 866W
  Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; how many were (a) granted and (b) refused each year; and what the (i) average and (ii) maximum time taken to process applications was in each year. [24841]

  Nigel Griffiths
  These records are not kept on a constituency basis.

  Details of all export licensing decisions together with information on performance in processing standard individual export licence applications are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what weight she places on the protection of jobs in areas of high unemployment when considering(a) Form 680 applications and (b) export licence applications. [25734]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The processing of Form 680 applications for the advance approval for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

  All relevant export licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, including the potential effect on the UK's economic, financial and commercial interests. I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, columns 199–203W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the value of business covered(a) by Form 680 applications and (b) by export licence applications (i) granted and (ii) turned down each year since 1 May 1997. [25735]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The processing of Form 680 applications for the advance approval for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

  The value of standard individual export licence (SIEL) applications for which a licence was issued is published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish the value of business covered by SIEL applications refused in each year since 1 May 1997.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many and what proportion of people over 60 years of age live in households that are fuel poor; [17468]

  (2) what her estimate is of the number of (a) people and (b) households that are in fuel poverty; [17469]
  867W
  (3) how many and what proportion of those disabled people who receive the middle higher rate of the disability living allowance care component or the higher rate of the mobility component live in households that are fuel poor. [17467]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is estimated that in 2000 there were 2.8 million households in England in fuel poverty (based on income including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest), or 3.9 million households (based on income excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest), representing falls of 15 per cent, and 13 per cent, respectively compared to 1998. More detailed breakdowns of fuel poverty in 2000 are not available as the estimates for 2000 are broad estimates based on changes in incomes and fuel prices, rather than being based on survey data. Some more detailed breakdowns are available for 1998; however, for some particular analyses the latest information relates to 1996.

  The latest available figures indicate that in England1.9 million (29 per cent.) households headed by an older couple or a single person over the age of 60 were in fuel poverty in 1998. This is based on fuel poverty being defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent, of its income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. When fuel poverty is defined using income excluding housing benefit or income support for mortgage interest 2.3 million (35 percent, of) households headed by an older couple or a single person over the age of 60 were in fuel poverty in England in 1998.

  The table presents estimates of the number of people and the number of households in England in fuel poverty in 1998, the latest year for which estimates of the number of people in fuel poverty are available.

  Fuel poverty in England in 1998

  Million

  People

  Households

  Fuel poverty defined using income including housing benefit and ISMI1

  6.2

  3.3

  Fuel poverty defined using income excluding housing benefit and ISMI2

  8.7

  4.5

  1 Fuel poverty defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent, of its income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  2 Fuel poverty defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent, of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  Source:

  1998 Energy Follow Up Survey to the English House Condition Survey

  Information on fuel poverty is not available split by the rate of disability living allowance. However, the latest available information (relating to 1996) on figures for households receiving the different components of the disability living allowance that are in fuel poverty, is available from the Libraries of the House.

  An analysis of fuel poverty in England in 1998 was published in August 2001 by DTI and DEFRA, and is available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/fuelpoverty/index.htm.
  868W
  Fuel poverty is a devolved matter and therefore it is for the respective Assemblies and Parliament to report on the situation in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Instruments of Torture
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls she places on the(a) manufacture and (b) export of instruments of torture; and if she will make a statement. [24553]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The manufacture of electric-shock weapons is regulated by the Firearms Act 1968 as amended.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the then Foreign Secretary, to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 65–66W, which announced a ban on the export or transhipment from the UK of certain specified equipment that has been used for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

  Steel Industry
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the factors which underlay the recent loss of jobs in Newport at Corus and Alcan plants, with particular reference to the value of(a) sterling and (b) the euro. [24909]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government fully understand the difficulties that the weakness of the euro has caused for British industry, particularly manufacturing. However decisions by Corus and Alcan to rationalise their operations, which have unfortunately resulted in job losses, are based on many factors, including the slowdown of the world economy, which are not limited to the value of sterling and the euro.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average time scale is between an application by a miner for compensation and the awarding of compensation; and if she will make a statement. [24945]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Handling Agreement for respiratory disease was formally signed on 24 September 1999 and claims could not be processed before this date. The average time scale from this date, or date of claim if after 24 September 1999, to settlement by expedited payment, following spirometry testing, is seven months. The average time scale, as set out above, for settlement via the full Medical Assessment Process is 1 year 11 months.

  This does not take into consideration interim payments that the Department has been making since May 1998. These payments are made as soon as IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, are in receipt of the relevant documentation.

  Following the resolution of the main outstanding issues for respiratory disease, the number of full and final offers made has risen sharply. The Department continues to identify parts of the process which can be improved and it is envisaged that the volumes of offers should increase as the Department and its contractors continue to ramp up operations.
  869W
  The Handling Agreement in respect of Vibration White Finger, VWF, was formally signed on 22 January 1998 and claims could not have been processed before this date. The average time scale from this date, or date of claim if after 22 January 1998, to settlement is 1 year 4 months. This also does not include interim payments made.

  It is envisaged that all existing claimants will be medically assessed by spring 2002.

  Taken together with compensation for respiratory disease, the Department made 7,000 offers, worth £47.7 million in November alone.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miners have applied for compensation; how many have been given compensation; how much has been given in compensation to date; and if she will make a statement. [24944]

  Mr. Wilson
  In respect of respiratory disease, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 173,600 claims, to date. 58,273 individual payments have been made totalling £238.8 million.

  With regards to Vibration White Finger, VWF, 133,662 claims have been initiated. 71,954 individual payments have been made amounting to £438.5 million.

  Following resolution of the main outstanding issues, IRISC are now making significant numbers of final offers. In November alone, for both respiratory disease and VWF, 7,000 offers were made worth £47.7 million.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in assigning a job code to those working as instructors and training officers in relation to mineworkers' compensation claims for respiratory disease. [24737]

  Mr. Wilson
  The issue of the appropriate job dust factor for training officers was recently referred to the Dust Reference Panel (DRP), an expert body that is jointly instructed by the claimants' solicitors' co-ordinating group (CG) and the Department. The DRP's report concludes that training officers would spend the majority of their time in a surface non-dusty environment, with only occasional visits underground, and as such should be classified as 'surface non-dusty'. The Department is in discussion with the CG about the DRP's conclusions. If both parties accept the DRP's report, training officers will not be eligible for compensation under the scheme. The category of mining instructor has not yet been referred to the DRP, and no request has been received from the CG for such a referral. The Department proposes to put the category to the DRP as soon as possible, subject to the CG's agreement.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total amount paid in operating aid to the UK coal industry under the current scheme; and if she will give details of how it is allocated. [24450]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 653W. The details in that reply are still up to date.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when Commission Regulation 3227/76 on nuclear facility safeguards came into force in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement on how it has been implemented in respect of Sellafield, with particular reference to the oversight of civil nuclear materials; [25176]

  (2) in what year the Euratom Safeguards Directorate first inspected the mixed civil military reprocessing plant at Sellafield; what verification Euratom has made of net loss of quantity or quality of the nuclear materials subject to Euratom safeguards in the period since the first inspection; and if she will make a statement. [25177]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Commission Regulation (Euratom) No. 3227 came into force in 1977. The first Euratom safeguard inspection visit to the BNFL Sellafield facility took place in 1973 but, as was announced to Parliament in 1986, on 4 June 1986,Official Report, columns 594–95, the simultaneous processing of civil and non-civil material meant that, until then, Euratom safeguard inspectors had not had access to mixed civil/non-civil areas of the facility. However, the co-processing of civil and non-civil material was ended in 1986, since when safeguards procedures have been in place to enable Euratom safeguard inspection of all civil material at the Sellafield facility. The verification activities involved are designed to detect the possible diversion of civil nuclear material from its declared use. There are regular inspections to confirm that information provided by the facility operator pursuant to Commission Regulation (Euratom) No. 3227 is correct (i.e. that the facility, its inventories of nuclear material and changes in these inventories are as reported). Euratom safeguard inspection activities at places such as Sellafield include access to confirm the facility's design, extensive access to and evaluation of plant and process operational data, and independent verification of the nuclear material itself— either by means of direct sampling and/or measurement, or by the application of "containment" and "surveillance measures" (e.g. sealing containers or stores of material, or video surveillance of plant areas) to confirm that previously measured material remains unchanged.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 303W, on Ofgem, if he will place copies of the consultation responses in the Library. [22354]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have placed a list of those who responded in the Libraries of the House. The responses can be viewed in the library of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Central Asia Pipeline Ltd.
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the United Kingdom companies which hold an interest in the Central Asia Pipeline Ltd. (CentGas) Consortium. [24415]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am not aware of any UK company involvement in the proposed Central Asia Pipeline Ltd. consortium.

  Small Businesses
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the "Think Small First" strategy for supporting small businesses. [25728]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All Government Departments have been encouraged to 'Think Small First'. The Small Business Service (SBS) has consulted across Whitehall to ensure all Departments consider the impact their actions have on small businesses. Significant progress has been made in the, Government's three priority areas of:

  (i) entrepreneurial culture and environment;

  (ii) regulatory framework for business; and

  (iii) support for business.

  Examples of progress are as follows: an independent cross-departmental Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education, led by Sir Howard Davies. The review is expected to report by the end of January 2002; enterprise and entrepreneurial skills are now included in the national curriculum; the launch of the Enterprise Insight "Enterprising Schools" initiative which encourages businesses to get involved in enterprise programmes; SBS consulted at an early stage by all Government Departments when UK regulatory policy issues affecting small businesses are being considered and their comments included in the final Regulatory Impact Assessment; implementation periods introduced for new legislation, which will give business clear guidance on new legislation 12 weeks before it comes into force; the Business Link Operator network re-structured and the national information and advisory service launched to provide a more consistent and customer focused service to small businesses. SBS working with other Government Departments to promote the Business Link Operator network as the route to market for business support services; 'NHS Plus' launched, which will enable a national network of NHS Occupational Health Departments to provide services specifically to small businesses.

  SBS have developed a range of performance indicators to measure the impact and benchmark the success of 'Think Small First" (available on the website www.sbs.gov.uk/consultations.) SBS intend to publish the initial findings early this year.

  BNFL
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she is proposing for the transfer of contracts held by BNFL to the Liabilities Management Authority; and if she will make a statement. [25408]

  Mr. Wilson
  The proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 990, will not affect BNFL's existing contractual commitments to its customers in any way. Details on how the Liabilities Management Authority is expected to operate in practice will be set out in the White Paper to be published next spring on the Government's overall approach to discharging the UK's public sector civil nuclear liabilities.

  Specific Interest Swap Transactions
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date and on whose advice the decision was taken by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to purchase the interest swaps referred to in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the introduction to the Export Credits Guarantee Department Winter Supplementary Estimates. [25213]

  Nigel Griffiths
  ECGD began to purchase the interest rate swaps referred to in paragraph (i) in 1986 and for (ii) in March 2001.

  ECGD has an agreed risk management policy for managing and controlling interest rate risk. All of these swaps were transacted in accordance with this policy.

  ECGD assesses its own hedging requirements and enters into or unwinds interest rate swaps through an auction process with banks with an investment grade of AA- or better.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a breakdown of the details of the specific interest swap transactions which were used to hedge the cost of interest make-up on fixed rate export finance loans, as referred to in paragraph (i) of the introduction to the Export Credits Guarantee Department Winter Supplementary Estimates. [25212]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Individual details of swap transactions are commercially confidential, but in summary we have 128 dollar interest rate swaps and 34 sterling swaps currently outstanding with a total notional value of US$4.6 billion and £804 million respectively.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a breakdown of the details of the specific interest swap transactions which were used to hedge potential interest make-up costs on pipeline large aircraft sector understanding cases, as referred to in paragraph (ii) of the introduction of the Export Credits Guarantee Department Winter Supplementary Estimates. [25211]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Individual details of swap transactions are commercially confidential, but in summary we have transacted 53 interest rate swaps with a total notional value of US$935 million of which US$325 million is currently outstanding.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis the decision was made to grant an export licence to BAE Systems for its Military Air Traffic Control system to be sold to the Tanzania Government; and if she will make a statement. [25830]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant export licence applications are considered on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 199–203W.
  873W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the World Bank's study into the technology of the Military Air Traffic Control System; and if she will make a statement. [25829]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation considers all relevant information available at the time when assessing export licence applications against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Where appropriate, this includes considering the views of international organisations like the World Bank.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with other Government departments regarding the sale by BAE Systems to the Government of Tanzania of an air traffic control system. [24975]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation circulates all relevant export licence applications to other Government Departments with an interest as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Ministry of Defence.

  Details of discussions with other Government Departments are exempt from disclosure under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are managed by her Department; how much each scheme has available to invest; what issues each scheme aims to tackle; and how much has been spent annually since 1997(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Teesside, (c) in Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough Councils and (d) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [25473]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not operate schemes which explicitly target urban regeneration, although most of those we operate are concerned with competitiveness and jobs, which contribute towards the regeneration of urban areas. In the majority of cases, it is not possible to disaggregate these schemes by area, since they are available nationally in both urban and rural areas.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are in place to ensure joined up working to deliver the social regeneration and economic regeneration of the most deprived communities; and if she will make a statement. [25522]

  Alan Johnson
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Transport, Local Government and the Regions today at column 854W.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's forecast is for growth in each type of renewable energy generation. [25631]
  874W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Government do not make forecasts for growth in each type of renewable energy generation. How each type will contribute to overall targets for renewable energy will be a matter for the market. An assessment of various possible scenarios for the growth of different renewable energy technologies is made in a report produced for the Department of Trade and Industry in March 1999 entitled "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21 Century: Supporting Analysis." A copy is in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government have made projections for the total quantity of electricity they expect to be generated from all forms of generation eligible to benefit from the Renewables Obligation in years between now and 2010–11. That information is set out on page 23 of the Statutory Consultation Document on the Renewables Obligation published by my Department in August. A copy of that document, too, is in the Library.

  A list of the sources of energy eligible for the Renewables Obligation is on page 13 of the Statutory Consultation Document.

  NETA
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Ofgem review of NETA on small generators;'(a) profit and (b) output since the introduction of the scheme. [25630]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ofgem's report to DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators issued on 31 August 2001, indicated that prices for the export of power from smaller generators had reduced by around 17 per cent, since the introduction of NETA. Ofgem also found export volumes reduced by 44 per cent, compared to a year previously. Ofgem suggested the lower export prices for electricity were one factor, but that higher costs (especially gas prices) may also have contributed.

  On 1 November 2001, I issued a consultation document in response to Ofgem's reports "The New Electricity Trading Arrangements—Review of the First Three Months" and "Report to the DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators" of 31 August 2001. This consultation closed on 1 December 2001.

  The Government's key proposals are, broadly,
  To ensure imbalance prices are genuinely cost reflective; and ensure that effective consolidation services emerge.

  Responses to the Government's consultation on NETA and smaller generators showed widespread support for the proposal to form a Consolidation Working Group. On 20 December 2001, I announced the formation of the Consolidation Working Group to look urgently at obstacles to consolidation services under the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA). I have asked the Consolidation Working Group to provide a final report by 31 January 2001.

  The Government are carefully considering responses on other proposals set out in their consultation document.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish biographical details of each
  875W
  board member of each RDA in England, giving in each case the (a) party political links and (b) trade union links that each board member has had. [25788]

  Alan Johnson
  I announced the reappointed RDA board members to the House on 24 October 2001 and the new appointments to the RDA boards on 11 December 2001. I refer the hon. Member to the answers given in columns 250W and 758–59W respectively and to the biographical details of the board members I placed in the Libraries of the House in connection with those answers. These include details of any party political or trade union links the board members have.

  Serco Assurance
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representation she has received from employees of Serco Assurance at Winfrith, Dorset, about the loss of full index linked pensions that they enjoyed while working for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. [25391]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. This is a matter for Serco Assurance and AEA Technology.

  Aerospace
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted into Government research and technology support offered to the aerospace sector in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) the USA, (d) Canada and (e) France; and if she will make a statement. [25313]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the UK, the DTI's civil aeronautics research programme supports long-term research in key aeronautics technologies by providing grants to industry, research organisations and universities. In March 2001, the then Secretary of State announced the continuation of this programme for five years covering the period from April 2001 to March 2006. Funding for 2001–02 is expected to total £20 million. Future funding of the Department's civil aeronautics research programmes will be determined alongside the funding of other DTI budgets as part of the Department's business support review and the Government's Spending Review 2002.

  Additionally, funding for the science base provided through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and related to aerospace research totalled around £14 million in 2000–01.

  The DTI also invests in the design and development of major civil aerospace programmes through launch investment. The most recent examples have been for Airbus UK to design and develop the wings for the Airbus A380 superjumbo programme (a Government investment of up to £530 million) and for Rolls-Royce to design and develop the Trent 900 engine for the A380 and the Trent 600 engine for potential future Boeing large aircraft (a Government investment of up to £250 million).

  As part of its Applied and Corporate Research Programmes and associated technology demonstrators, the Ministry of Defence spends about £120 million per annum on aerospace-related work for specific defence needs.

  We have no directly comparable information for the other countries listed but our best estimate of expenditure on civil aeronautics research equivalent to the UK's civil
  876W
  aircraft research programme is about £60 million for France and £100 million for Germany. These nations also provide Launch Investment for new civil aerospace developments.

  In the USA, aeronautical research activity funded through NASA totals several hundred million pounds annually though the USA does not provide Launch Investment for aerospace developments. Canada, under the "Technology Partnerships Canada" programme, has made repayable investments worth around £500 million in the last five years in aerospace and defence projects.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19438]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Departmental report, published in March 2001, shows the following allocation of spending for 2001–02 which has not changed since.

  £

  Pay bill and general administrative expenditure

  2,279,000

  Lord Lieutenants' expenditure

  30,000

  North Wales Child Abuse tribunal wind-up costs

  546,000

  Receipts

  -9,000

  Capitals

  766,000

  Total

  3,612,000

  At the mid year point my Department did not anticipate any appreciable underspend.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in 2001–02 with the target for response to correspondence within 15 days of receipt. [24758]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have taken a number of measures, including better monitoring of performance; more rigorous enforcement of internal deadlines; and the appointment of an additional member of staff.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes in Wales are defined as fuel poor households; and how many of these include (i) pensioners and (ii) children. [23950]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: Housing issues in Wales are generally a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. However, the Government and devolved Administrations are working in partnership to tackle fuel poverty throughout the UK through the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. One of the Government's initiatives in this area is the payment of winter fuel payments, now at £200 a year, helping up to 460,000 pensioner households in Wales.
  877W
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy did not provide statistics on households in Wales in the form requested. However, using a proxy of households in Wales eligible for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (based on the Welsh House Condition Survey 1997–98), the strategy estimated that of the approximately 222,000 such households in Wales, 117,000 contain at least one person over the age of 60; 40,000 are lone parents; 32,000 contain at least one person who is sick or disabled and 33,000 are other forms of households with children.

  The Assembly are considering a possible general household survey in 2003 which will contain one element to cover fuel poverty.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints have been reported in his Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25327]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of her Department since May 1997. [17605]

  Mrs. Liddell
  For the period between May 1997 and 30 June 1999 there were no local public spending bodies set up under legislation which was the responsibility of the former Scottish Office.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. There have been no local public spending bodies set up since that date.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21313]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Out of five staff employed under the new deal, the Department has employed one person under the new deal for young people but there are currently no staff in post in this category. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the subsidy to the Scotland Office was £2,860. The cost of training and development cannot readily be identified.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21834]
  878W
  Mrs. Liddell
  A number of alternative working patterns, including home working, are available to staff in the Scotland Office. Currently no staff within the Scotland Office work permanently from home, although some do so on an occasional basis. In a recent survey staff were invited to declare an interest in alternative working. My Department is considering the survey results with a view to setting up pilot studies into a number of alternative working patterns.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the effects on Scotland of the SNCF restriction of channel tunnel rail freight services. [24099]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 225W.

  This is a matter of considerable concern to the Government. It is having a severe impact on cross-channel rail freight operators and their customers in Scotland and in other parts of the UK.

  The Government are working at all levels with the French authorities to try and resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

  Golden Jubilee
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has for celebrating the Queen's Golden Jubilee in Scotland. [25428]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All of Scotland, including myself, will celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Details of Her Majesty's programme in Scotland will be made available to the House in due course.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been reported in her Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25326]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The procedures for making complaints under the civil service code are set out in the Department's staff handbook. Civil servants are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints made under paragraph 11 of the civil service code with their line manager. IF for any reason this is not felt to be possible, perhaps because the line manager is part of the complaint, individuals may take their complaint to a nominated official (or officials). It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made within this Department under paragraph 11 of the code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints made under the civil service code which are resolved within the management line.

  "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland"
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date she received the Scottish Executive document, "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland"; and on what date she publicised its contents. [25540]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A joint Scottish Executive/Scotland Office News Release was issued, along with the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) Report, on 17 December 2001.

  Consistent with normal practice, advance copies of the final text of the GERS report were available prior to publication, on 12 December.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General in what matters she deputises for the Attorney-General. [23683]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers Act 1977 provides that any function of the Attorney-General may be exercised by the Solicitor-General. I therefore deputise for the Attorney-General across the range of his responsibilities.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Euro
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what arrangements are being made for the use of euro notes and coins in restaurants and souvenir shops in the House. [24387]

  Mr. Kirk wood
  Many UK businesses, particularly those serving tourists from overseas, already accept payment in foreign currencies, including the euro. However, the House's restaurants and souvenir shops provide services primarily to Members and staff who work here, and to constituents visiting the House. The Refreshment Department is therefore not planning to accept payment for its catering or retail services in euros or any other foreign currency.

  However, the hon. Member will have noted from the Administration Committee's First Report on the 2001 trial opening of the Summer Line of Route (HC 433 of Session 2001–02) that at least 50 per cent, of the 86,000 visits last year came from overseas. If the Committee's recommendation that the summer opening of the Line of Route become a permanent feature is accepted, the potential benefits, costs and risks of accepting payment for tickets, souvenirs and refreshments in foreign currencies, including the euro, will be considered for this project.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 880W
  18 December 2001, to what extent the commitment to provide the resources required to support the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be judged by (a) the Commission, (b) by the internal auditors and (c) by the Commissioner. [25149]

  Mr. Kirk wood
  The Commission will base its judgment on the findings of the review which it has asked the Internal Review Service to carry out. In reaching that judgment, the Commission will take full account of the views both of the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and of the incoming Commissioner for Standards, as to the expected workload and the resources required.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 2W, on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, when the Chairman of the Commission was first told the letter dated 28 November had been openly made available to the media on the afternoon of Tuesday 4 December; and when he was first told that some of its contents had been confirmed on the forenoon. [25037]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Speaker knew on the morning of 4 December that his office was confirming media reports that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had written to him informing him that she did not wish to apply for reappointment but that his office was also making clear that the text of the letter would not be released. The Speaker was informed later that day that the text had become available to the media from other sources.

  Parliamentary Proceedings (Webcast)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee how the pilot project to webcast parliamentary proceedings on the internet may be viewed within the parliamentary estate. [26017]

  Mr. Lepper
  The House of Commons and House of Lords are starting to webcast coverage of some debates on the internet. This is a pilot project, to be assessed at the end of 2002, aimed at making the work of Parliament more accessible to people unable to visit Westminster. The webcasts largely duplicate the coverage already available on the internal Annunciator system and in this test environment, during the pilot project, they will not be accessible via the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN). However, from next week viewing facilities will be available in the e-library of the House of Commons and, I understand, also in the Queen's Room in the Library of the House of Lords.

  Portcullis House (Water Feature)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on how many days since Portcullis House opened the water feature has been(a) operational and (b) out of operation. [25383]

  Derek Conway
  A leak developed last summer after the water feature had operated successfully for some 12 months. This has resulted in the water feature being switched off for most of the time since the summer recess. Following protracted discussions a way to resolve the problem has now been agreed with the company that has
  881W
  taken over the responsibilities of the original contractor, who is no longer in business. This will lead to the leak being repaired at the least possible cost to the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16116]

  Jane Kennedy
  As at January 2001, based on full-time equivalents, there were 1,539 staff from the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) employed by the Department and 195 staff from the Home Civil Service (HCS). These figures can be broken down as follows:

  (a)the Department

  (i) there were 8 NICS staff and 119 HCS staff in London;

  (ii) there were 727 NICS staff and 63 HCS staff in areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status;

  (iii) there were no staff in areas benefiting from EU Objective 2 status;

  (iv) there were 2 NICS staff and 2 HCS staff in other areas

  (b) agencies sponsored by the Department

  (i) there were 0 staff in London;

  (ii) there were 622 NICS staff and 11 HCS staff in areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status;

  (iii) there were no staff in areas benefiting from EU Objective 2 status;

  (iv) there were no staff in other areas.

  Rubber/Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) rubber and (b) plastic bullets have been used since their introduction; how many have been purchased in each year and at what cost; and how many have been purchased since publication of the Patten report and at what cost. [17758]

  Jane Kennedy
  The tables give details of the number of baton rounds used by the police, since separate police recording began in 1981.

  Year

  Police use of baton rounds

  1981

  19,649

  1982

  335

  1983

  545

  1984

  1,503

  1985

  906

  1986

  1,462

  1987

  1,908

  1988

  2,292

  1989

  836

  1990

  211

  1991

  235

  1992

  39

  1993

  497

  1994

  214

  1995

  273

  1996

  6,949

  1997

  2,527

  1998

  1,236

  882W

  Year

  Police use of baton rounds

  1999

  111

  2000

  22

  2001 (21 November)

  89

  The Chief Constable has informed me that details of the costs in relation to the purchase of baton rounds, and the number purchased prior to 1995, are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The following table gives details of the number of baton rounds purchased by the Royal Ulster Constabulary each year from 1995:

  Year

  Baton rounds purchased by police

  1995

  25,200

  1996

  60,875

  1997

  33,900

  1998

  75,227

  1999

  50,400

  2000

  76,320

  2001

  46,000

  Since publication of the Patten Report the Royal Ulster Constabulary has purchased 122,320 baton rounds, and to date the Police Service of Northern Ireland has not purchased any baton rounds.

  Omagh Bombing
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in seeking to identify the source of the leak of the Northern Ireland police ombudsman's unfinished report into the Omagh bombing; and if he will make a statement. [23320]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have no plans for such an investigation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information Act
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he has taken to co-ordinate the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by Government Departments. [23469]

  Mr. Wills
  Overall responsibility for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 rests with the Lord Chancellor as Head of the Department with lead responsibility for the legislation. The Lord Chancellor chairs the Cabinet sub-committee on Freedom of Information and Data Protection, of which Ministers from all central Government Departments are members.

  Two interdepartmental officials groups have been set up to support the Ministerial committee. The Senior Group on Freedom of Information and Data Protection consists of those senior officials from across Whitehall, and the devolved Administrations, who have responsibility for implementing Freedom of Information and Data Protection in their organisations. The group meets every three months and has been set up to look at major implementation questions affecting central Government.
  883W
  The senior group is supported by the Practitioner's Group on Freedom of Information. It consists of officials with day to day knowledge of open Government and implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in their respective Departments. The function of this group is to address common issues related to the implementation of the legislation. The group also acts as a forum for sharing best practice and helps to ensure consistency in approach across central Government.

  Private Landlord Evictions
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what figures he has collated on how many people have been(a) legally and (b) illegally evicted by private landlords in each of the last 10 years. [25034]

  Mr. Wills
  Information concerning the number of evictions by private landlords, either legally or illegally, is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For information purposes, figures concerning the number of possession orders granted by the courts to private landlords during the last 10 years are provided in the table. It should be noted however, that these orders would not necessarily have resulted in an actual eviction.

  Possession orders granted to private landlords1

  Suspended

  Immediate

  2000

  5,116

  8,265

  1999

  6,381

  8,568

  1998

  8,753

  8,586

  1997

  8,881

  8,495

  1996

  8,296

  8,970

  1995

  6,785

  8,833

  1994

  5,553

  8,258

  1993

  4,048

  7,562

  1992

  4,094

  9,739

  1991

  5,074

  10,361

  1 Does not necessarily result in an eviction

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23800]

  Dr. Howelis
  The average number of staff employed in the Department is set out in the table.

  Year

  Staff employed

  1998

  365

  1999

  388

  2000

  397

  2001

  420

  The figures for 2001 include staff transferred from the Home Office and Cabinet Office as part of Machinery of Government changes.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many libraries(a) nationally and (b) in the Buckingham constituency are linked to the National Grid for Learning; [23746]

  (2) how many library service points (a) nationally and (b) in the Buckingham constituency are internet connected; and what the figures were in 1997. [23745]

  Dr. Howells
  All public libraries connected to the internet have access to the National Grid for Learning. Currently 2,782 public libraries are connected to the internet, which constitutes 67 per cent, of all public libraries in the UK. 100 per cent. will be connected by the end of 2002. In Buckinghamshire library authority all 36 public libraries are connected to the internet, of which eight are in Buckingham constituency. Figures for Buckingham in 1997 are unavailable, but nationally 184 libraries had public internet access in that year.

  J. M. W. Turner
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are to commemorate the 150th anniversary of J. M. W. Turner's death; and what plans there are to create a single national collection of his works. [24175]

  Dr. Howells
  To commemorate the 150th anniversary of J. M. W. Turner's death, Tate Britain staged an exhibition from 5 March to 15 July 2001, focusing on the contents of Turner's own gallery. To mark the anniversary Tate Britain is also currently featuring in its anniversary display area an example of Turner's views of Venice, which was also one of the first of his works to enter the national collection.

  The Royal Academy held a major commemorative exhibition of Turner's finished watercolours from 2 December 2000 until 18 February 2001 to commemorate the anniversary. Most of the exhibits were lent by other national and international institutions with over 40 works on loan from private collections.

  A single holding of the works from Turner's bequest to the nation was made possible with the opening of the Clore Wing at the Tate Gallery (now Tate Britain) in 1987. Although other collections in the UK continue to hold and display works by the artist, this represents the largest single national collection of Turner's work, where works may be viewed and studied in depth.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24203]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 335W. We have recently replied to Cabinet Office requests for

  885W
  information, and our position in respect of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the PIU report will be included in the report of the overall situation.

  Euro
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what efforts her Department(a) has made and (b) is planning to put into effect to assist the English tourist industry to deal with the effects of the introduction of the euro. [24416]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA), working with the UK's tourism industry, issued guidance entitled "The Euro and your Business". The guide contains information on the euro, a checklist of action points and advice on authenticating banknotes.

  The leaflet was revised in November as "The euro—A guide for small tourism businesses". Copies are available from the BTA and it is published on their website www.tourismtrade.org.uk/home.htm. Further guidance will be issued if we find it is needed.

  Hotel Charges
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she monitors prices charged by private hotels for accommodation in different regions of the United Kingdom. [24413]

  Dr. Howells
  Pricing policy is a commercial decision for each hotel operator in light of prevailing market forces. Therefore, DCMS does not monitor prices charged by individual accommodation providers. However, my Department is concerned with price transparency and the need for guests to be able to form a judgment about how much it will cost them before purchasing a room. The Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1977 requires hotels to display in their reception areas or entrances the highest and lowest prices for each type of room (e.g. single, double etc.) and those prices must include, where appropriate, any service charge or meals and whether VAT is included.

  Sports Strategy
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the implications of the proposed restriction on coaching set out in the Charity Commissioners' Guidelines at paragraph 18 of Annex B in the Treasury's Consultation Document, "Promoting Sport in the Community for the Government's Sports Strategy". [25396]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are currently consulting on their view that the Charity Commission's decision on charitable status would appear to offer better prospects for community amateur sports clubs than a tax relief package the Government had been considering. Responses to that consultation are requested by the Treasury by 1 February 2002. I intend to meet representatives of the Charity Commission shortly to discuss the extent of applications from sport for charitable status and the fuller guidance the Commission intends to issue on this subject in due course. These discussions will include the need for greater clarity on a range of issues in the current guidance including the treatment of different levels of skill among participants at sports clubs seeking charitable status.
  886W
  It is the Government's understanding that all skill levels can be catered for by a sports club promoting healthy recreation which obtains charitable status but that such a commitment will not rule out selection of teams on merit and/or different coaching offered to different ability levels. The Commission recognises that the provision of coaching to regional, national and international standards often acts as an incentive to other less able players to improve and/or to attract new people to the club.

  Online Gambling
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Budd report recommendation to prevent under-age online gambling will be implemented; who will police it; how it will be policed; what the role of Ofcom will be; and how a child's age can be verified online. [25521]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have not yet reached decisions on the recommendations contained in the report of the Gambling Review Body. We are fully aware of the potential risks of underage gambling and will take them into account before announcing our conclusions.

  Max Mosley
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what dates(a) she and (b) others in her Department have (i) met, (ii) spoken by telephone to and (iii) written to the President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile; and if she will place a copy of the notes of such communications in the Library. [25619]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met Max Mosley, President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, on 12 December 2001 to discuss arrangements for the 2002 British Grand Prix at Silverstone as well as wider proposals for the long-term development of the circuit. I have had no other recent contact with Mr. Mosley. This was a private discussion at which a range of motor racing issues was discussed, and I do not propose to place the notes of the meeting in the House Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will give a substantive answer to a letter from Dr. Paul Arnison-Newgass of Dartmouth, Devon, a constituent, and which was forwarded to her parliamentary correspondence unit for reply. [24954]

  Mr. Caborn
  I received the hon. Gentleman's letter on 13 December 2001 and I replied to him on 5 January 2002.

TREASURY

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs in manufacturing were lost between the second quarter of 1997 and the latest date for which figures are available. [25293]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  887W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 9 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs since the second quarter of 1997. I am replying in his absence. (25293).
  The table below shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing for the second quarter of 1997 and August-October 2001 (three-month rolling averages) for comparative purposes.

  Seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  UK

  Number

  April to June 1997

  4,166

  August to October 2001

  372

  Change between April to June 1997 and August to October 2001

  -374 (-9.0%)

  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. The data are published in Statbase on the National Statistics website under series identifier LOMN.

  Analytical Methodology
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the different methods of analysis of gross domestic fixed capital formation used by(a) the Treasury and (b) the Central Statistical Office in the national accounts. [25299]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 9 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the different methods of analysis of gross domestic fixed capital formation used by (a) the Treasury and (b) the Central Statistical Office in the national accounts. I am replying in his absence. (25299)
  The Office for National Statistics compiles estimates of gross fixed capital formation for the national accounts in line with international guidance and definitions as set out in the European System of Accounts 1995. The Treasury use these estimates in their forecasts and other analyses.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total value of shares were owned by individuals and what the total value was(a) in the latest year for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 1992. [25298]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 9 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the ownership of shares. I am replying in his absence. (25298)
  The Office for National Statistics conducts a Share Ownership survey. The most recent available data is for the 31st December 2000, and was published in "Share Ownership", which can be downloaded free from the National Statistics Website (www.statistics.gov.uk). This publication gives details of the value
  888W
  of shares held by private individuals (table B) and the percentage of the total stockmarket owned by value (table A) for all years in which a survey was conducted (1989–1994 and 1997–2000).

  Revenue Report
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the annual report by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ending 31 March 2001 will be published. [25205]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Inland Revenue annual report for the year ending 31 March 2001 was published on 18 December 2001.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 199W, if the impact on business of the Tax Credits Bill will be known before he has announced the relevant rates and tapers in the 2002 Budget. [25820]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment was published, together with the Tax Credits Bill, on 29 November.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 199W, when he will publish the evaluation of the updating of the impact of the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. [25346]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Evaluation findings will be published in due course.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on where the Treasury will source the funding for the increase in the net cash requirement of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the Winter Supplementary Estimates. [25210]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Funding for the increase in the net cash requirement of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the Winter Supplementary Estimate will be from the Consolidated Fund.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  David Cairns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the working families tax credit on the income levels of the poorest working families in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. [25424]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The working families tax credit (WFTC) is a success in making work pay for families with children. At August 2001 WFTC was helping 1,270,000 families. This is 52 per cent, more families than were benefiting from family credit at its peak, and families were receiving on average around an extra £35 per week. In the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency 1,893 families with children were benefiting from WFTC at August 2001.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 33W, on working families tax credit, how many families had an increase in net income due to the working families tax credit regime of (a) 0 to

  889W
  10 per cent., (b) 10 to 20 per cent., (c) 100 to 110 per cent., (d) 110 to 120 per cent., (e) 120 to 130 per cent., (f) 130 to 140 per cent. and (g) 140 to 150 per cent. [25207]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is estimated from the Family Resources Survey that, under the working families tax credit (WFTC) regime applying to awards starting from June 2001, the numbers of such families are about(a) 400,000 and (b) 270,000. The sample size is too small to yield any reliable estimates for (c) to (g) except those provided in the answer given to my right hon. Friend on 4 December 2001, Official Report, column 203W.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are derived from 1999–2000 FRS with incomes projected forward to 2001–02 and assuming the 2001–02 regimes for income tax and national insurance contributions. They are subject to sampling error.

  2. Increase in net income is defined as final net income less initial net income, assuming no behavioural change. Final net income is income as projected, including estimated entitlement to WFTC, housing benefit (HB) and council tax benefit (CTB). Initial net income is this less the estimated entitlement to WFTC, plus any consequent increase in estimated entitlement to HB and CTB.

  International Tax Recoveries
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 374W, 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 360W, 30 November 2001, Official Report, column 1217W, and 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 28W, on international tax recoveries and with specific regard to the table analysing recoveries, 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 375W, how much was recovered in total under all heads of recovery in the year ending 31 March 2000 from taxpayers falling in all the bands from less than £1 million to £10 million to £50 million inclusive. [25204]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  International tax recoveries are analysed as follows:

  £ million

  Band

  Recovered

  Less than £1 million

  21

  £1 million to £10 million

  117

  £10 million to £50 million

  244

  £50 million to £100 million

  210

  The written answer of 25 October indicated that there were no cases in the £50 million to £100 million category: in fact there were three.

  Urban Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are managed by his Department; how much each scheme has available to invest; what issues each scheme aims to tackle; and how much has been spent annually since 1997(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Teesside, (c) in Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough councils and (d) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [25478]

  Ruth Kelly
  No schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are currently managed, or have been managed since 1997, by the Chancellor's Departments and agencies.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to lower the duty on biodiesel to the same rate of tax as that levied on road fuel gases; and if he will make a statement; [25688]

  (2) what plans he has to lower the duty on bioethanol fuel; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on encouraging the use of biofuels. [25687]

  Mr. Boateng
  Duty rates are reviewed annually as part of the Budget process. We have already announced that, subject to European agreement, we will introduce a lower rate of excise duty on biodiesel later this year, to be set at 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel.

  Film Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the beneficiaries were of tax breaks to the film industry in the last 12 months; and what sums were involved. [25284]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The estimated tax cost of relief provided to British qualifying films in 2000–01 under section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 was £90 million. We estimate that a further £50 million was provided under section 42 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992. Without sections 48 and 42 we estimate that the amount of tax relief given to the film industry would be halved. The names of the recipients of the tax relief cannot be disclosed on the grounds of taxpayer confidentiality.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by local authority area those industrial and provident societies with registered addresses in London. [25456]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not readily available.

  Oils Fraud (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met his Irish counterpart to discuss action against oils fraud in Northern Ireland; and what the outcome of those discussions was. [25740]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 266W.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment HM Customs has made of the volume of trade into the United Kingdom of bushmeat. [25809]

  Mr. Boateng
  Import controls designed to protect animal and human health are the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, port, airport and local health authorities, and the Food Standards Agency. Customs supports and co-operates with these lead agencies both in joint exercises and by seizing illicit meat when discovered in customs checks. Customs statistics do not distinguish between bushmeat and other meat imports, but the total amount of illicit meat
  891W
  seized by Customs in the year ending 31 March 2001 was 2.655 metric tonnes. This does not include seizures by the lead agencies in joint exercises with Customs.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the Customs target for 2000–01 for asset seizures resulting from action against tobacco smuggling; what was the sum total of such asset seizures in that year; and if he will make a statement. [25739]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As part of the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy, Customs were set a target for the level of asset seizures for 2000–01 of £15 million. Customs' performance against this and other subsidiary targets of the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy will be set out in Customs annual report for 2000–01.

  Euro
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the flexibility to cope with economic change of EU institutions and economies within the euro zone in his assessment of the economic tests for UK adoption of the euro. [25312]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have set out five economic tests which must be met before any decision to join can be made. An assessment of the five tests will be made within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment will be comprehensive and rigorous.

  African Trypanosomosis
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the tax exemptions for research into diseases of the developing world announced in the 2001 Budget will include African trypanosomosis. [25263]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor announced consultation on a new tax credit to stimulate research into the development of vaccines and drugs to combat malaria, TB and strains of AIDS/HIV most prevalent in the developing world in Budget 2001. During the consultation period, a number of other diseases—including trypanosomosis—were suggested as suitable candidates for the proposed new tax credit. All such suggestions have been fully considered and an announcement on the scope of the proposed tax credit will be made in Budget 2002.

  Companies undertaking research into trypanosomosis will be eligible for either the relief for research expenditure by small and medium sized companies (SMEs) introduced in Finance Act 2000 or for the new relief for research expenditure by companies other than SMEs to be introduced in Finance Bill 2002.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written parliamentary questions to his Department in the past 12 months had not received a full answer within five weeks of the question being tabled. [25300]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers answered 3,070 written questions in the House of Commons in 2001, 73 per cent, on or before the due date. In 23 cases (0.7 per cent, of the total) full answers were not provided within five weeks of the question being tabled.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many investigations for tax fraud were carried out in each year since 1997; and what was the success rate of those investigations. [25301]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Inland Revenue carries out inquiries, as opposed to investigations, into tax returns as part of its work in tackling non-compliance. At the outset of any inquiry there is no assumption as to whether a return is incorrect and/or incomplete and, therefore, no assumption about the existence or otherwise of fraud or negligence. While the majority of inquiries are undertaken on the basis of a perceived compliance risk this is not true of all inquiries and a successful inquiry is one that is carried out thoroughly and in accordance with appropriate codes of practice.

  Detailed information about the number of inquiries undertaken in each year and the additional liabilities established as a result of the Revenue's work in tackling non-compliance is set out in the Inland Revenue annual report for each year, available in the House of Commons Library.

  Treasury Publications
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to make all Treasury publications available to hon. Members through the Vote Office. [25613]

  Ruth Kelly
  All significant documents which are published by the Treasury are made available to Members through the Vote Office and are also deposited in the Library of the House. Members can also obtain these and other Treasury publications from the Treasury, if they wish.

  VAT
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT inspection visits are planned for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2001–02. [24794]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs plan to make 245,000 inspection events during 2001–02. These risk-based inspections may take the form of a visit, or contact by telephone and fax to resolve specific issues arising.

  Plans for 2002–03 are not finalised.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many businesses Customs and Excise have withdrawn use of the VAT cash accounting scheme in each of the last five years for which statistics are available; and how many businesses entering the scheme in each year have withdrawn from it at the order of Customs and Excise. [24802]

  Mr. Boateng
  Businesses do not require approval from Customs to use the cash accounting scheme. Customs may withdraw use of the scheme in cases of abuse or to protect the revenue, but these instances are rare. No record is kept of the number of businesses removed from the scheme.

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will freeze the assets of organisations in
  893W
  the United Kingdom that finance (a) Hamas, (b) Fatah and (c) other Palestinian and middle east terrorist organisations. [25459]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are committed to the fight against terrorism and since the events of 11 September 2001 have led by example in issuing asset freeze lists against individuals and organisations. A total of £72 million has been frozen in connection with groups involved in financing terrorist activities.

  The Government imposed a freeze on the assets held in the UK for the Holy Land Foundation, which is suspected of financing terrorist activities of Hamas, on 6 December 2001.

  Where there are "reasonable grounds to suspect" that any organisation is involved in the financing of terrorism the Government will not hesitate to add their name to the 328 individuals and organisations who have already been targeted with assets freezes.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average earnings of full-time employees were in the Buckingham constituency in the most recent years for which figures are available. [24869]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 9 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the average earnings of full-time employees in the Buckingham constituency. I am replying in his absence. (24869)
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) shows that in April 2000, the average weekly earnings for full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay was not affected by absence, were £412.3 in the Buckingham constituency.
  For previous years' data, I refer you to the NES Part E, Table E18, available in the House of Commons Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the savings to the Exchequer which would result from restricting the tax relief to individuals on(a) defined benefit, (b) defined contribution, (c) group personal and (d) personal pensions to a level that would provide an income in retirement just above benefit levels; and if he will make a statement. [25736]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of assumptions that would need to be made and the complexity of the modelling procedures involved means that a robust estimate could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being held in Northern Ireland in each(a) prison and (b) other location permitted to do so. [18855]
  894W
  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 September 2001. As at that date, the only establishment in Northern Ireland that held Immigration Act detainees who had claimed asylum at some stage was Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry, at which less than five such persons were being held.

  Information on immigration detainees as at 31 December 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office web site at http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigration1.html.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been detained for more than six months in Northern Ireland. [18856]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information relates to persons detained under Immigration Act powers as at 30 September 2001. As at that date, there were no persons who had sought asylum at some stage who have been detained for more than six months in Northern Ireland.

  Information on immigration detainees as at 31 September 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals seeking asylum in the UK have been located in the Buckingham constituency since the introduction of the Government's dispersal policy. [22657]

  Angela Eagle
  Figures are not available by constituency for those asylum seekers accommodated by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

  Statistics from NASS for the end of September 2001, show that 600 1,2 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in NASS accommodation in the South Central region, which includes the Buckingham constituency

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  2 Cases which have had their support ceased are excluded from this figure.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people under the age of 16 years from overseas countries have entered the UK during the last 12 months and have claimed political asylum on entry. [22480]

  Angela Eagle
  During the last 12 months (September 2000 to August 2001), 2,002 applications for asylum were lodged at United Kingdom ports by unaccompanied children, under the age of 18. I regret that this information is not available for children under the age of 16.

  Reliable information on the number of children who have entered the United Kingdom as asylum seekers, accompanied by an adult, is not readily available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers had degrees in each of the last 10 years. [25018]
  895W
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only by examining individual case records and by consulting the asylum seekers themselves, and it is, therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  Iranians
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances Iranian citizens with family in the United Kingdom are allowed to visit the country. [23135]

  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration Rules make provision for visits to the United Kingdom. To qualify for entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor, applications must demonstrate that they are genuinely seeking entry as a visitor for the period stated, that they have sufficient funds to support and accommodate themselves and any dependants without working or recourse to public funds, and that they will leave the United Kingdom at the end of the visit. The maximum period allowed for a visit is six months. Iranian nationals need to obtain a visa before travelling to the United Kingdom.

  UK Citizenship
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the standard of proficiency in spoken English from ethnic minorities who seek citizenship of the United Kingdom should attain as a norm of acceptability. [22850]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]The British Nationality Act 1981 requires applicants for naturalisation, except where married to British citizens, to have sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. Applicants who are able to make simple conversation and communicate well enough to deal with everyday situations are considered to meet this requirement. The requirements for British nationality, including the language requirement, are currently under review and the Government will announce their conclusions in a forthcoming asylum, immigration and nationality White Paper.

  Legal Assistance (Russia)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for legal assistance in criminal investigations were received from

  Relationship victim to suspect

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Age of victim 0–7 years

  Family member

  50

  43

  53

  45

  65

  Someone known to them

  4

  11

  11

  0

  1

  Stranger

  6

  5

  8

  8

  11

  Total

  60

  59

  72

  53

  77

  Age of victim 8–13 years

  Family member

  6

  3

  6

  6

  10

  Someone known to them

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Stranger

  3

  4

  3

  6

  2

  Total

  10

  8

  9

  13

  14

  Age of victim 14–18 years

  Family member

  9

  7

  6

  3

  14

  Someone known to them

  12

  11

  27

  13

  16

  896W
  Russia in (a) 2000 and (b) to date; how many responses have been made to these requests to date; and if he will make a statement. [24738]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In 2000, 24 requests were received from Russia. Of these, seven requests were executed, eight were transferred to other authorities to execute, six remain under consideration and three were returned as we were unable to execute them. 62 requests were received in 2001. Of these, nine requests have been executed, 26 remain under consideration, 24 were transferred to other authorities to execute and three were returned as we were unable to execute them.

  Tagging
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners who were initially released from prison under the tagging system have committed further offences following their release from the tagging system; [24501]

  (2) how many prisoners who have been released from prison under the tagging system have committed offences while tagged. [24459]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 30 November 2001, a total of 42,853 prisoners had been released on Home Detention Curfew (tagging) since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999. Of these, 893 (2 per cent.) are reported to have been convicted, cautioned or awaiting prosecution for offences committed while they were subject to the scheme. Information relating to the number of prisoners released on Home Detention Curfew and who commit offences after their period on the scheme has expired is not held centrally.

  Murder Victims (Young People)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the age groups(a) 0 to 7, (b) 8 to 13 and (c) 14 to 18 years were murdered in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and in each age group how many were killed by (i) a family member, (ii) someone known to them and (iii) a stranger. [24561]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested for England and Wales is given in the table. Data are given for currently recorded homicides. Family member includes current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover. Stranger includes those cases where the relationship is not known or where there is no suspect.
  897W

  Relationship victim to suspect

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Stranger

  22

  11

  15

  20

  22

  Total

  43

  29

  48

  36

  52

  Note:

  As at 3 October 2001; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Homicide Statistics are published annually in Chapter 4 of 'Criminal Statistics England and Wales'. Data are published on a calendar year basis up to 1997 and a financial year basis from 1997–98. The latest statistics relating to 2000–01 were published in December 2001 in 'Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000'.

  Prisoners (Drug Testing)
  Mr. Stincheombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of days added to sentences on the basis of positive mandatory drug tests on prisoners was in each of the last five years for(a) cannabis, (b) opiates, (c) cocaine and (d) benzodiazepines. [24282]

  Beverley Hughes
  Statistics on numbers of days added to sentence by different drug type are not collated centrally. The total number of added days awarded for prisoners found guilty of unauthorised use of a controlled drug are set out as follows:

  Number added days

  1996

  106,942

  1997

  106,824

  1998

  107,517

  1999

  103,786

  2000

  100,801

  Prostitution
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the Jany v. Staatsecretaris van Justitie case of the European Court of Justice Case C 268/99 published on 11 December, with particular reference to (a) the implication of access to the United Kingdom of prostitutes from Poland and Czech Republic and Slovakia and (b) the implications of right of establishment under Article 43 of the Treaty. [24286]

  Angela Eagle
  This ruling, along with the cases of Gloszczuk, Kondova, Barkoci and Malik, was welcomed by the United Kingdom Government. A detailed assessment of its implications is being made but our view is that the United Kingdom can continue to apply its Immigration Rules in such cases (paragraphs 211–223 of HC 395). Importantly, the rulings support our view that those here illegally cannot benefit from the association agreements.

  The provisions on self-establishment in the association agreements are subject to limitations justified on the ground of public policy. A member state is entitled to rely on the public policy limitation in relation to those seeking to establish themselves in its territory under the agreements as self-employed prostitutes where that member state has adopted measures designed to combat prostitution carried out by its own nations.
  898W
  Living off immoral earnings (pimping) and soliciting for prostitution are criminal offences under United Kingdom law and will continue to be prosecutable by the courts regardless of the nationality of the prostitute in question. We will rely on the public policy limitation to prevent Polish, Czech or Slovak nationals from establishing themselves as self-employed prostitutes in the United Kingdom under the association agreements.

  The right of establishment under the Article 43 of the EC Treaty is effected by EC Council Directive 73/148, which deals with the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the EU for nationals of member states with regard to establishment and the provision of services. Article 8 of that directive allows member states to derogate from the provisions of the directive on the grounds of public policy. We would seek to rely on that provision should a national of a member state seek to enter or live in the United Kingdom as a prostitute.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Immigration and Nationality Department to be able to accept e-mails from hon. Members. [24503]

  Angela Eagle
  In accordance with guidelines of the Office of the e-Envoy the Home Office has published its e-Business Strategy on the internet. Progress by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate towards the e-Government targets on electronic information and service provision for 2005 are set out within that strategy and in Appendix A.

  The body of the strategy can be found at: http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ebusiness/stratmain.pdf. The appendices are at: http: ///.homeoffice.gov.uk/ebusiness/stratapp.pdf.

  MORI has recently been commissioned to survey the experiences and expectations, including preferences on electronic service provision, of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's customers. In the light of that survey, in which Members of Parliament will be invited to participate, further consideration will be given to the options and time scale for receipt of e-mail from hon. Members.

  People Trafficking
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far the UK has fulfilled its commitments under the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. [23352]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom signed the Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, which requires the specific criminalisation of trafficking in human beings in December 2000.
  899W
  The Government are currently negotiating a European Union (EU) Framework Decision, which is a binding European Union instrument. It contains most of the provisions in the United Nations (UN) Protocol and in certain aspects is more wide-ranging. The Government are committed to making it a criminal offence to traffic in human beings for the purposes of labour or sexual exploitation and is currently examining suitable legislative vehicles to facilitate this and other new offences on people trafficking. Under the provisions of the EU Framework Decision, the United Kingdom will be required to have implemented the instrument within two years of its adoption.

  The UK is also contributing to the EU STOP programme, which was set up by a joint action of the European Council in 1996. This programme provides support to member state organisations responsible for action against the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. A European Council decision of 28 June 2001 established a second phase of this programme (STOP II).

  As part of a multi-faceted approach, the protocol also requires work to be done to prevent people trafficking. We are in the process of drawing up a cross-departmental strategic approach to people trafficking that will include a comprehensive programme on prevention and the care of potential and actual people trafficking victims. In the last year, the Government funded overseas projects to tackle people trafficking in Turkey, Thailand and Cambodia. We have also contributed £200,000 to an Organisation and Security Co-operation in Europe fund to help the victims of trafficking and raise awareness of the dangers among vulnerable groups.

  In addition, we set up Project REFLEX last year, a multi-agency task force chaired by the National Crime Squad, to co-ordinate action against organised immigration crime, including people trafficking, and to develop the intelligence and strategic planning to underpin them. It is now well established and has already resulted in some major successes involving partners overseas, by disrupting organised criminal groups involved in bringing people to the United Kingdom.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in relation to the recommendations in his Department's report, "Stopping Traffic", published in 2000. [23353]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office report "Stopping Traffic" assessed the extent of trafficking in women for the purposes of sexual exploitation and the law enforcement responses to the problem in the United Kingdom. In response, the Government are currently drawing up a coherent and comprehensive cross-Departmental strategy to address people trafficking on a national and international scale. The Government response will go beyond the report to address both sexual and labour exploitation of victims of trafficking and will engage a broad range of Government Departments and law enforcement agencies with interest in this area.

  The Government are committed to putting in place effective measures to combat the trafficking of human beings and to penalise those engaged in this abhorrent practice. To this end, the United Kingdom has signed the Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention on
  900W
  Transnational Organised Crime, which requires the specific criminalisation of trafficking in human beings. The Government are also currently negotiating an EU Framework Decision, which is a binding European Union instrument and requires the criminalisation of trafficking in human beings for the purposes of labour or sexual exploitation. Under its provisions, the United Kingdom will be required to have implemented the instrument within two years of its adoption.

  Sexual Offences Review
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation based on the recommendations in the sexual offences review report, "Setting the Boundaries". [23351]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government are concerned that the law should provide clear and coherent sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation.

  The recommendations of the sex offences review to Government on reforming the law on sex offences were published in "Setting the Boundaries" in July 2000. We are currently analysing more than 700 responses received during the consultation period, which closed on 1 March 2001, and are considering how to change existing sex offences, in the light of the recommendations and the responses to the consultation exercise. We will be bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rape(a) complaints, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions there were (i) in total and (ii) in each county in England and Wales in (A) 2000 and (B) 2001. [23354]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The number of rape complaints is not collected centrally, but the available information relating to the number of recorded crimes of rape, together with the number of persons proceeded against and convicted of rape, by police force area for 2000 are shown in the table.

  All the figures in the table relate to the rape of males and females. The two sets of figures shown in the table are not directly comparable as recorded crime is offence based and court proceedings are person based.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  Rape—number of recorded offences and persons proceeded against and convicted by police force area in 2000

  Police force area

  Recorded offences

  Persons proceeded against1

  Persons convicted1

  Avon and Somerset

  175

  59

  13

  Bedfordshire

  87

  31

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  104

  27

  4

  Cheshire

  83

  33

  13

  Cleveland

  45

  18

  8

  Cumbria

  27

  7

  3

  Derbyshire

  116

  37

  11

  Devon and Cornwall

  178

  29

  15

  Dorset

  84

  21

  14

  Durham

  60

  40

  3

  901W

  Rape—number of recorded offences and persons proceeded against and convicted by police force area in 2000

  Police force area

  Recorded offences

  Persons proceeded against1

  Persons convicted1

  Essex

  170

  38

  6

  Gloucestershire

  90

  20

  8

  Greater Manchester

  555

  121

  44

  Hampshire

  284

  91

  23

  Hertfordshire

  73

  28

  6

  Humberside

  152

  26

  6

  Kent

  178

  50

  20

  Lancashire

  172

  73

  15

  Leicestershire

  140

  37

  8

  Lincolnshire

  68

  28

  11

  London, City of

  —

  1

  2

  Merseyside

  212

  68

  9

  Metropolitan police

  2,217

  340

  110

  Norfolk

  106

  14

  5

  Northampstonshire

  49

  4

  6

  Northumbria

  239

  94

  19

  North Yorkshire

  54

  15

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  255

  59

  19

  South Yorkshire

  127

  47

  7

  Staffordshire2

  195

  —

  15

  Suffolk

  94

  14

  5

  Surrey

  119

  19

  4

  Sussex

  257

  47

  9

  Thames Valley

  273

  45

  15

  Warwickshire

  25

  6

  2

  West Mercia

  114

  20

  5

  West Midlands

  546

  156

  37

  West Yorkshire

  405

  135

  41

  Wiltshire

  73

  9

  4

  Dyfed Powys

  47

  25

  5

  Gwent

  106

  25

  10

  North Wales

  101

  24

  4

  South Wales

  125

  65

  22

  England and Wales

  8,580

  2,046

  598

  1 Data are given on a principal offence basis. Persons shown as convicted may have been proceeded against in earlier years.

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

  Source:

  Home office Crime and Criminal Justice Unit.

  Downview Prison
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons received prisoners from Downview between 17 July and 1 September. [25162]

  Beverley Hughes
  The main destinations for prisoners from Downview were:

  Coldingley, a nearby category C training prison;

  Ford, for those prisoners who were recategorised to D;

  Elmley, a local prison in Kent;

  Wormwood Scrubs, where former Downview prisoners were accommodated in a separate wing.

  Visas
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time taken to renew a one year student visa was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [23632]
  902W
  Angela Eagle
  Information about average waiting times for student applications is not held centrally and could be obtained only by scrutinising individual case files, at disproportionate cost. We aim to decide 70 per cent, of new general and settlement applications within three weeks but at present it is taking up to eight weeks on average to consider new straightforward applications. The reasons for this are (i) the exceptionally high number of new applications received this year, especially in recent months; and (ii) process changes that are being introduced. We are working to reduce this to three weeks or less as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to enable individuals to retain their passports while their visa renewal applications are being processed. [23634]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to change the existing procedures requiring overseas nationals to provide their passports when applying for extensions of stay in the United Kingdom. But everything possible will be done to reduce the time scales for dealing with such applications and to improve the arrangements for handling applicants' passports while their applications are pending.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were released from prison without accommodation to go to in the last 12 months. [23905]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the accommodation of prisoners after release is not available centrally for all prisoners. However a prisoner resettlement survey is currently being carried out for the Prison Service. This involves interviews with a representative sample of about 2,000 prisoners shortly before discharge. It will provide information about the proportion reporting that they have no accommodation to go to on release. Results will be available in spring 2002.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of women were refused bail by the courts in each of the last five years on the grounds that(a) they would fail to surrender to custody, (b) they would commit an offence while on bail, (c) they would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, (d) they should be kept in custody for their own protection or welfare and (e) the case was adjourned for inquiries or a report. [23908]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information held centrally does not give a breakdown of the reasons why people are refused bail by the courts.

  Migrant Workers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to sign and ratify the 1990 UN convention on the protection of rights of all migrant workers and their families. [23686]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans at present to sign and ratify the convention. The Government consider they have already struck the right balance between the need for immigration control and the protection of the interests and rights of migrant workers and their families in the United Kingdom. The rights of migrant workers and their
  903W
  families are protected in United Kingdom legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998, and the United Kingdom's existing commitments under international law.

  Court Cases
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court cases have collapsed during the last five years because of technical law procedures. [23877]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The number of court cases which collapsed because of technical law procedures cannot be identified by the Home Office from other early terminations or acquittals in the statistics collected centrally by the Department.

  Driving Offences (Mobile Phones)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for(a) dangerous driving, (b) failing to have proper control of the vehicle and (c) careless and inconsiderate driving have been brought because of the use of mobile phones in each year since 1995. [24296]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There is no separate offence of driving a vehicle while using a mobile telephone and the circumstances of offences are not collected. In the main, prosecutions involving the use of mobile phones are likely to be for driving without due care and attention under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The number of prosecutions for this offence within England and Wales since 1995 is given in the table.

  Proceedings at magistrates courts for offences of driving without due care and attention1, England and Wales, 1995–2000

  Year

  Number of offences prosecuted

  1995

  73,015

  1996

  66,858

  1997

  64,819

  1998

  60,505

  1999

  54,789

  2000

  49,971

  1 Offences under section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988

  It is also possible for such drivers to be prosecuted or issued with a fixed penalty for not being in proper control of a vehicle (Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986), but such cases cannot be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Driver Improvement Scheme
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the driver improvement scheme in reducing road traffic accidents; if he plans to assist those on low incomes with the fees and with loss of earnings while attending; and if he will make a statement. [25303]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  National Driver Improvement Schemes are currently offered as an alternative to prosecution by the police. Research so far conducted shows improvement in driver attitudes and self-reported behaviour in the three months following attendance at courses. Further research is being undertaken to try to assess re-offending rates.
  904W
  The matter of fees is for the police and for the course providers.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Forestry
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the options for further decentralising handling of forestry policy and management. [26399]

  Mr. Morley
  When I announced the completion of the first stage of the review of the Forest Enterprise executive agency on 10 May 2001,Official Report, column 301W, I said that we intended to review the options for further decentralisation of forestry policy and management. The Scottish and Welsh Forestry Ministers and I have decided that the review will start shortly and report to us in the spring. It will consider the current administrative arrangements for delivering sustainable forestry policies in England, Scotland and Wales and the UK's international forestry commitments, including options for further devolution of these arrangements. The review will be undertaken by officials from the Forestry Commission, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will also be involved in the review. Views will be sought from interested parties during the course of the review.

  Timber Procurement
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has taken to ensure that the Government procure only sustainable and legally felled timber. [8285]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced to Parliament on 28 July 2000,Official Report, columns 947–48W, that central Government Departments and their agencies were committed to actively seeking to buy timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources. In January 2001 the Office of Government Commerce wrote to departmental Heads of Procurement to confirm this policy. Departments have been asked to report annually on their timber purchases and the recent Greening Government report for the financial year 2000–01 includes a summary of the responses received. My Department, on behalf of an interdepartmental working group on timber procurement, has commissioned a study on the scale of central Government's timber requirements and the options available for developing the most effective implementation of this policy. An interim report is due to be published at the end of February 2002 with a final report due at the end of May 2002. My Department has consulted the Timber Trade Federation and environmental NGOs in pursuit of the Government's timber procurement policy and has been raising awareness among Departments and the wider public sector. In May 2001 a timber procurement workshop was held at the Greening Public Procurement conference organised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and attended by a cross-section of the public

  905W
  sector. In October 2001 my Department gave a presentation at the local government's Central Buying Consortium conference and took that opportunity to promote the purchase of sustainable and legally harvested timber. Recently my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has met the Timber Trade Federation to discuss implementation of the Government's timber procurement policy and he addressed a wide cross section of stakeholders and answered questions at the WWF 95+ Group 10th anniversary celebration event. My Department has arranged to meet the Department for Transport, Local Government and Rural Affairs to discuss how local authorities may be encouraged to purchase timber from sustainable and legal sources where they are not doing so already. My Department is working closely with the Department for International Development and other Departments to develop bilateral agreements with producing countries that will help to halt the export of timber that has been felled illegally.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is taking to promote the viability of(a) the hardwood and (b) the softwood timber growing industries; what recent discussions she has had with the Timber Growers Association; and if she will make a statement. [25187]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's Forestry Strategy for England sets out our priorities and programmes for sustainable forestry in England. These priorities include supporting the strategic development of woodland resources. Specific actions include support for regional and local marketing initiatives, and ensuring the supply of timber from our woodland resource is available at levels indicated in long-term forecasts. In addition, through the Forestry Commission and in partnership with woodland owners and wood users we are supporting the Wood for Good campaign, the largest single timber promotion ever mounted in the UK. Other measures include purchasing research on timber use from the Building Research Establishment, the Timber Research and Development Association and other organisations. We are also working to ensure that small sized timber and woodland residues are recognised as a source of renewable energy. These measures will help to promote the viability of the hardwood and softwood industries.

  I meet regularly with representatives from the Timber Growers Association (now known as the Association of Timber Growers and Forestry Professionals, following a merger with the Association of Professional Foresters, effective from 1 January 2002). The association is represented on the England Forestry Forum and I attended a parliamentary lunch with the Timber Growers Association and the UK Forest Products Association on 5 November 2001.

  LGC/Cellmark Diagnostics Ltd.
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the responsibility of LGC and Cellmark Diagnostics Ltd. Was in relation to errors in tests of sheep and cow brains; and if she will make a statement. [24908]

  Mr. Morley
  Cellmark Diagnostics has had no involvement with the Government in this context. LGC performed the cross-checking genetic test of the brains in 906W
  the flawed Institute of Animal Health experiment about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on 22 October last year. LGC has performed an internal audit of this work and is satisfied that the samples were correctly handled and that the results can be traced back to the correct samples.

  Laboratories (Departmental Arrangements)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to(a) review and (b) assess her Department's arrangements with (i) its own and (ii) other laboratories; and if she will make a statement. [24907]

  Mr. Morley
  As Executive Agencies of DEFRA the arrangement between the Department and its three science laboratories—Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) and Central Science Laboratory (CSL)—are governed by their respective Framework Agreements. Executive agencies are subject to quinquennial reviews which evaluate their performance and organisational arrangements. All three agencies are due quinquennial reviews this year. In accordance with best practice active consideration is being given to a joint exercise to ensure realisation of the full potential of these reviews to help improve the way service and functions are delivered. I hope to be able to announce further details soon. In addition the three agencies are the subject of periodic science assessments carried out by teams of independent and respected experts in the relevant fields. A science assessment was conducted on CEFAS in 1999 and similar assessments are currently under way at VLA and CSL.

  DEFRA has concordats with the research councils, such as BBSRC, NERC and MRC, aimed at ensuring effective working arrangements. The research councils periodically assess their research institutes for scientific quality, strategic relevance of science and knowledge transfer; BBSRC are currently carrying out such an assessment. In addition to this Horticulture Research International, a DEFRA sponsored NDPB but included in the BBSRC assessment exercise, is to undergo a quinquennial review in 2002 which was announced in December 2001.

  Livestock Compensation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 860W, on livestock compensation, for what reason the Government treats losses incurred on cattle which went beyond 30 months because they could not be moved during the foot and mouth crisis as an indirect loss. [R] [25150]

  Mr. Morley
  As that answer explained, the Government pay compensation only on property, including animals, seized or destroyed to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. The Government do not compensate for other losses such as those resulting from inability to market agricultural products at an optimum time.

  Hills Task Force
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to all aspects of the Hills Task Force report; and if she will make a statement. [23696]

  Mr. Morley
  The Hills Task Force produced many wide-ranging and thoughtful recommendations which are being considered in the review of the Hill Farm Allowance, in the review of agri-environment schemes and elsewhere. The recommendations on helping hill farms to recover from foot and mouth disease have already informed our recovery strategy. The report also provides a timely contribution for the consideration of the Policy Commission on Food and Farming announced on 9 August and which we understand is due to report shortly.

  TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many TB breakdowns of cattle there were in the Gloucester Division in each year from 1990 to 2000; and what the projected figure is for(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [25348]

  Mr. Morley
  The Gloucester Animal Health Division covers the counties of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and the part of North Somerset which was formerly in the County of Avon. The total of new herd TB incidents from 1990 to 2000 and the number of those confirmed to be M.bovis TB are set out in the table.

  Year

  New herd incidents

  Of which confirmed

  1990

  22

  0

  1991

  69

  0

  1992

  104

  1

  1993

  151

  5

  1994

  151

  34

  1995

  189

  108

  1996

  181

  89

  1997

  229

  132

  1998

  314

  184

  1999

  333

  221

  2000

  366

  257

  This information is taken from the IT system used by the State Veterinary Service in support of their TB control work and has not been checked against the quality criteria expected of 'national statistics'. Figures may therefore be unreliable (especially before 1996); they show trends rather than absolute numbers of new incidents.

  Precise forecasts of the number of future incidents are not possible because of unknown variables including, in particular, the effect of the suspension of TB testing during 2001 in order to limit the spread of foot and mouth disease. We expect the total of new herd incidents in 2001 to fall within the range 95 to 150 (final figures will not be available until April). In 2002, if the rising trend of the last four years continues in the Gloucester Division, a new herd incident figure of around 400 may be possible, although it is not yet clear how measures taken in respect of foot and mouth disease may affect the incidence of bovine TB.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when full TB testing of herds will resume; what the priority order is for 908W
  testing cattle to monitor the spread of bovine TB; and what staffing implications there are in the resumption of full cattle TB testing. [25373]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to predict when full TB testing of cattle will resume. This will depend on when veterinary resource can be released from FMD work.

  Prioritisation of testing will vary according to local circumstances but in general tests will be ranked using two major criteria: likelihood of TB infection in a herd; and likely transmission of TB out of a herd. Top priority will be given to tests on herds where raw milk or raw milk products are manufactured and sold for human consumption or direct to consumers. Next in priority will be overdue tests on herds which have some association with an incident of TB. Of these, herds with high levels of movements other than direct to slaughter will be given priority.

  The major part of routine TB testing is delivered for the Government by local veterinary practitioners who work for the State Veterinary Service (SVS) as local veterinary inspectors (LVIs). Non-routine TB testing is delivered by both SVS veterinary officers and (LVIs) depending on local circumstances. SVS administrative staff provide office support for the testing programme. The resumption of full TB testing and clearing the overdue test backlog will place significant demands on these resources for quite some time to come.

  Flooding
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation has been made of the ability of the Environment Agency to undertake its statutory duties relating to flooding; and if she will make a statement. [25747]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has permissive powers to undertake flood defence works on main rivers and against flooding from the sea. The agency also has a statutory duty to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence.

  The agency is able to carry out these functions satisfactorily.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what in the allocation of revenue support grant for 2002–03 reflects the cost of the floods in autumn 2000 for(a) North Yorkshire county council, (b) Humbleton district council, (c) Harrogate borough council, (d) Ryedale borough council and (e) City of York council. [25279]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 137W.

  Hunting
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether departmental staff processing permits from hunts on Saturday 15 December usually work at weekends. [25484]

  Alun Michael
  Most of the sections processing hunt permit applications do not work at weekends.
  909W
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many(a) fox and (b) hare hunts have applied for a temporary permit for hunting with dogs; and how many of these have been (i) accepted and (ii) rejected; [25487]

  (2) if she will list the Forestry Commission land holdings where hunting permits have been issued under the temporary permits scheme; [25485]

  (3) how many applications for temporary permits to hold hare coursing events have been received; and how many have been (a) accepted and (b) rejected. [25488]

  Alun Michael
  The current system is demand-led and temporary. DEFRA's animal health divisional offices will produce monthly statistics. A full copy of the statistics will be placed in the Library of the House when available.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what special conditions have been attached to licences giving permission to hunt to the(a) Worcestershire Hunt, (b) Croome and West Warwickshire Foxhounds and (c) North Cotswold Hunt; what the reason is for any such special conditions; and how long she expects such conditions will endure. [24454]

  Alun Michael
  Hunting with hounds is not governed by a licensing system. At present a temporary system sets out the requirements against which hunting can be allowed to take place within the requirements of disease control measures. Hunting was one of the activities that was banned in order to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease and assist its eradication. The Government's priority has been to eradicate FMD and then to enable the countryside to return to normal as quickly as it is safe to do so. For each of the activities that were banned or limited the decision on resumption and on any residual limitations on the relevant activity has been based on a Veterinary Risk Assessment. For low risk activities like walking, implementation of such decisions have been relatively straightforward. The same was found to be the case in respect of grouse shooting and falconry. In the case of hunting with hounds, the Veterinary Risk Assessment reflected a much more complex set of circumstances in which different forms of hunting, different conditions in different parts of the country and concentrations of FMD susceptible species such as deer and the presence of Form A and Form D farms all posed different risks and are factors that have to be taken into account.

  On 15 November 2001 I published proposals for the way in which hunting might be allowed to resume, along with the Veterinary Risk Assessment on which the proposals were based. Essentially it was proposed that any hunt which wished to resume activity would have to show how they would observe the limitations which would be necessary to minimise the risk of starting another outbreak of FMD. Decisions were delegated to Divisional Veterinary Managers who would be familiar with local circumstances and would need to be satisfied that the hunt could meet the requirements of animal health controls. Hunts which met these requirements can be permitted to hunt within the defined limits.
  910W
  On 13 December 2001 I published details of the permit arrangements which included practical amendments responding to representations by both hunting and non-hunting groups. Since then our Divisional Veterinary Managers have sought to apply local knowledge and common sense to approaches from hunts. They have been widely praised for the way they have undertaken this additional task and I would like to place on the record my thanks to the DEFRA staff involved.

  It is against this background that the circumstances of the Worcestershire Hunt, the Croome and West Warwickshire Foxhounds and the North Cotswold Hunt have to be understood.

  All these hunts have applied for and given a permit to hunt. Limitations on hunting will continue as long as care is needed to achieve the eradication of FMD and the general requirements—which require hunts not to meet or hunt within 8 km of a Form A or a Form D premise—will be reviewed as and when there is any change in the Veterinary Risk Assessment. As indicated earlier, the disease control requirements are being applied with common sense in the light of local circumstances. So in the case of the Worcestershire Hunt several exceptions have been granted to this criterion which is that it may hunt closer to a particular Form A premise as the M5 acts as a natural buffer between the Farm and five of the proposed meets. Two other proposed meets have also been permitted within an 8 km restriction due to the low risk of hunting near to the relevant Form A premise.

  Special conditions have also been applied to the Croome and West Warwickshire Hunt forbidding it from hunting on the Ragley Hall Estate. This is in recognition of the estate having a large deer population.

  These conditions will continue to apply as long as the threat of FMD remains. The permit section at Worcester Animal Health Office is constantly reviewing the restrictions on individual Form A and Form D premises and as soon as any are lifted, the relevant Hunts are being informed. The temporary permit system for hunting will continue as long as restrictions are necessary to achieve eradication of FMD and will be removed when FMD has been officially eradicated from the whole of Great Britain.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the question, ref 22779, tabled on 10 December, for what reason replies to letters from the hon. Member for the Vale of York were not received by 19 December. [25322]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member has been sent responses to all the letters detailed in her question, ref 22779, tabled on 10 December, except the letter dated 21 June on behalf of Mrs. P. Crosby of Thirsk about FMD, which will be sent out as soon as possible.

  Organic Farming
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further steps the Government are taking to encourage the growth of organic farming. [23969]
  911W
  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 30 November,Official Report, column 1174W.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which household chemicals have been permitted to be tested on animals in live experiments in the UK in the next two years. [19423]

  Mr. Morley
  EU legislation requires testing, including animal testing, of all industrial chemicals produced in high volume (greater than 1,000 tons per manufacturer per year) and below this level, the generation of data on new chemicals according to the amount produced. Other chemicals may be required to be tested if there are justifiable concerns. Chemicals used for particular purposes, for example pesticides and biocides (including garden pesticides and household disinfectants) and pharmaceuticals, are also required to be tested before they are put on the market. We have no information about which chemicals will be coming forward for testing in future years. Animal tests are regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is a Home Office matter. The Government's policy is to reduce the number of animals used in tests and we are currently supporting changes to Pesticides Directive 91/44/EC to prevent the replication of testing on vertebrate animals.

  Farm Assurance Schemes
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage(a) supermarkets and (b) consumers to buy produce from farm schemes which are (i) environmentally and (ii) animal welfare friendly; and if she will make a statement. [23701]

  Mr. Morley
  The promotion of food produced in accordance with the standards laid down in farm assurance schemes is a matter for the individual scheme providers. The Department has, however, supported the development of farm assurance schemes and the inclusion within them of animal welfare and environmental standards. A significant proportion of farm produce in the UK is now produced in accordance with the standards laid down in such schemes. Much of this will be sold to consumers through supermarkets.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) matters discussed and (b) points agreed and disagreed in her meeting on 17 December with her Norwegian counterpart. [25165]

  Margaret Beckett
  We had a useful and friendly discussion of issues of mutual interest, including climate change, the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the North Sea Conference, which the Norwegians will chair in March. The Norwegian Minister raised the issue of technetium-99 discharges from Sellafield, but I was unable to comment for legal reasons in advance of the statutory decision which the Secretary of State for Health and I have to take on the Environment Agency's proposed decision.
  912W
  The meeting was held in order to exchange views rather than to seek agreement on any specific points.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's discussions with EU institutions in the last six months regarding the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [24962]

  Mr. Morley
  We have had a number of discussions with Commission representatives about the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy Agenda 2000 decisions and the Secretary of State will be meeting Commissioner Fischler later this month. Our understanding is that the Commission are likely to report to the Agriculture Council on the review in the summer.

  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the worldwide slump in skimmed milk powder consumption on the UK milk producing industry; and if she will make a statement on recent trends in milk prices. [25253]

  Mr. Morley
  The fall in world demand for skimmed milk powder has depressed prices. Low demand in the UK coupled with low prices could lead to an increase in public intervention. That is why the Government have supported moves by the Commission to stimulate markets both at home and abroad.

  The producer price for milk reflects the position in the market and, therefore, has recently shown a downward trend following a very sharp recovery compared to a year earlier. The action already taken may help arrest this trend but the price will ultimately be determined by supply and demand.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease samples were subjected to laboratory testing. [24090]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: Samples were taken for laboratory testing from 1,728 premises which are confirmed as infected premises.

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 17: 00 17 December 2001.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entertainment Budgets
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the entertainment budget for each British embassy and consulate for financial year 2000–01. [23778]

  Mr. MacShane
  Entertainment budgets are not held at embassy and post level. However, actual expenditure is recorded and the figures for 2000–01 are detailed in the table. A composite figure is shown where the FCO has more than one representation in a city.
  913W

  £

  Post

  Total

  Paris

  305,231

  Tokyo

  302,731

  New York

  267,024

  Washington

  226,400

  Brussels

  205,744

  Berlin

  158,251

  Moscow

  127,739

  Hong Kong

  115,156

  Buenos Aires

  105,381

  Seoul

  105,117

  Geneva

  91,927

  Peking

  88,212

  Madrid

  82,297

  Rome

  78,985

  Vienna

  75,033

  Ottawa

  68,189

  Cairo

  63,938

  Dublin

  61,465

  Islamabad

  61,232

  Atlanta

  60,077

  Chicago

  59,426

  Warsaw

  59,009

  Santiago

  57,590

  Riyadh

  57,440

  Jakarta

  56,706

  Mexico City

  56,562

  New Delhi

  56,153

  Singapore

  55,951

  Tripoli

  52,383

  Lagos

  51,900

  Tel Aviv

  51,551

  Athens

  51,422

  Zagreb

  49,771

  Nairobi

  49,485

  Kuala Lumpur

  48,446

  Hague, The

  47,596

  Stockholm

  47,149

  Prague

  46,609

  Muscat

  46,536

  Copenhagen

  46,144

  Berne

  45,323

  Canberra

  44,720

  Houston

  44,576

  Brasília

  44,455

  Accra

  44,397

  Caracas

  44,116

  Sydney

  43,684

  Manila

  43,652

  Ankara

  42,517

  Nicosia

  41,841

  Los Angeles

  41,287

  Ljubljana

  39,812

  Budapest

  39,658

  Sarajevo

  39,347

  Helsinki

  39,273

  Oslo

  38,646

  Pretoria

  38,596

  Bangkok

  38,031

  Grand Turk

  37,912

  Taipei

  37,550

  Kuwait

  36,862

  Shanghai

  36,592

  Amman

  35,951

  Hanoi

  35,679

  Abuja

  35,644

  Bridgetown

  35,252

  Beirut

  34,790

  Baku

  34,423

  Lisbon

  34,393

  Kingston

  33,993

  914W

  £

  Post

  Total

  Boston

  33,752

  Abu Dhabi

  33,174

  Dusseldorf

  32,547

  Havana

  32,128

  Doha

  31,905

  Dhaka

  31,679

  Bahrain

  30,235

  Plymouth

  30,096

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  29,826

  Osaka

  29,780

  Bogotá

  29,540

  Belgrade

  28,790

  Khartoum

  28,704

  Sanaa

  28,697

  São Paulo

  28,638

  Damascus

  27,804

  Gibraltar

  27,107

  Bucharest

  26,918

  Hamburg

  26,726

  Nassau

  26,480

  Luanda

  26,390

  St. Petersburg

  26,284

  Riga

  25,764

  Harare

  25,720

  Strasbourg

  25,235

  Lima

  24,963

  Freetown

  24,591

  Vancouver

  24,423

  Vilnius

  24,357

  Ho Chi Minh City

  24,328

  Bombay

  23,855

  Milan

  23,489

  Valletta

  23,369

  Abidjan

  23,358

  Brisbane

  23,289

  Dubai

  22,941

  Dakar

  22,904

  San Francisco

  22,543

  Colombo

  22,536

  Wellington

  22,412

  Lusaka

  22,387

  Tehran

  22,057

  Jerusalem

  21,713

  Kampala

  21,461

  Kinshasa

  21,012

  Yaounde

  20,853

  Maputo

  20,701

  Addis Ababa

  20,365

  Minsk

  20,023

  St. Helena

  19,821

  Sofia

  19,772

  Istanbul

  19,680

  Stanley

  19,576

  Port of Spain

  19,574

  Panama City

  19,402

  Tallinn

  19,384

  Montreal

  19,365

  Santo Domingo

  19,090

  Tunis

  18,790

  Cape Town

  18,544

  Toronto

  18,501

  Tortola

  18,485

  Reykjavik

  18,339

  Marseilles

  18,242

  Rabat

  17,722

  Kiev

  17,647

  Jedda

  17,475

  Almaty

  17,096

  Gaborone

  17,072

  Dar es Salaam

  16,999

  915W

  £

  Post

  Total

  Madras

  16,885

  Ekaterinburg

  16,740

  Quito

  16,709

  Tirana

  16,468

  Karachi

  16,254

  Munich

  16,189

  Belmopan

  16,164

  Anguilla

  16,158

  Asunción

  15,920

  Port Louis

  15,537

  Luxembourg

  15,490

  Melbourne

  15,383

  Johannesburg

  15,216

  Lyon

  14,844

  La Paz

  14,760

  Montevideo

  14,601

  Pristina

  14,274

  Perth

  14,099

  Barcelona

  14,080

  Kigali

  13,871

  Vila

  13,854

  Port Moresby

  13,823

  Frankfurt

  13,676

  Lilongwe

  13,473

  Tegucigalpa

  13,318

  Ashgabat

  13,049

  San Salvador

  12,816

  Rio de Janeiro

  12,760

  Phnom Penh

  12,607

  Georgetown

  12,529

  Bratislava

  12,465

  Victoria

  11,853

  Kathmandu

  11,786

  Skopje

  11,460

  Managua

  11,247

  Suva

  11,180

  Alexandria

  11,043

  Tbilisi

  11,030

  Naples

  11,028

  Casablanca

  10,889

  Ulaanbaatar

  10,616

  San José

  10,564

  Algiers

  10,300

  Rangoon

  10,246

  Guatemala City

  10,021

  Bordeaux

  10,001

  Auckland

  9,928

  Yerevan

  9,927

  Chongqing

  9,843

  Seattle

  9,777

  Lille

  9,527

  Castries

  9,333

  Nuku Alofa

  8,814

  Dili

  8,649

  Calcutta

  8,565

  Banjul

  8,454

  Mbabane

  8,308

  Honiara

  8,248

  Tashkent

  8,149

  St. John's

  7,809

  Holy See

  7,758

  Windhoek

  7,537

  Amsterdam

  7,134

  Maseru

  6,987

  Antananarivo

  6,077

  Bilbao

  6,052

  Palma

  5,677

  Durban

  5,419

  St. George's

  4,249

  Kingstown

  3,821

  916W

  £

  Post

  Total

  Conakry

  3,012

  Grand Cayman

  1,340

  Guangzhou

  621

  Pyongyang

  335

  Total

  7,347,976

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many commercial aircraft have been diverted en route to Gibraltar due to(a) inclement weather and (b) restrictions by the Government of Spain on overflying Spanish airspace. [R] [24512]

  Peter Hain
  In the period 1 January to 18 December 2001, 29 commercial aircraft en route to Gibraltar were diverted due to inclement weather. None were diverted due to restrictions on overflying Spanish airspace.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the ESDP's readiness to take on(a) a peacekeeping role, and (b) a humanitarian aid relief role. [24939]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At Laeken the EU assessed that it was now able to conduct some crisis-management operations. The EU will be in a position to take on more demanding operations as the assets an capabilities at its disposal continue to develop. Decisions to make use of this ability will be taken in the light of the circumstances of each particular situation, a determining factor being the military and civilian assets and capabilities at the disposal of the Union at the time.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost to the EU of EU structures that there have been created to support the ESDP in(a) the current financial year and (b) each of the next two years. [24988]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The budget of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union contains a provision of £10.7 million to meet expenses related to the European Union Military Staff and infrastructure and meeting costs in support of the European Security and Defence Policy during the current EU financial year. There are no estimates currently available for these costs in future financial years.

  The current year is the first in which the budget of the General Secretariat has included disaggregated figures for the costs of the European Security and Defence Policy. In the figure stated it has therefore been possible to include not only the costs of the infrastructure supporting ESDP, as estimated in the answer to the hon. Member's question of 5 December 2001, Official Report, column 360W, but also the costs of meetings and of the European Union Military Staff, which will near full staffing this year.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he
  917W
  expects to be made before the expiry of the MINURSO mandate by the UN on a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. [25234]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1359 that extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 28 February 2002.

  Resolution 1359 reiterated full support for the on-going efforts of MINURSO to implement the Settlement Plan and the agreements of the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self determination of the people of the Western Sahara. The resolution expressed the UN's commitment to assist the parties in achieving a just and lasting solution to the question of the Western Sahara.

  We continue to support the efforts of James Baker, the Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General, who is currently engaged in an attempt to resolve the dispute. We look forward to the interim reports on the situation from the Secretary General, in January and again in February.

  Ukraine
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Britain's relationship with Ukraine with reference to the enlargement of the EU. [25376]

  Peter Hain
  The Government support a closer relationship between the EU and Ukraine and welcome recent progress including Ukraine's attendance at the enlarged European conference meeting in October and the agreement of an EU-Ukraine Action Plan on Justice and Home Affairs. The Government recognise the potential impact on Ukraine of the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union and support the European Commission's efforts to ensure that this is taken into account, eg by supporting joint programmes with EU candidates aimed at improving border management.

  The Government consider that EU enlargement presents opportunities for Ukraine, particularly in the fields of trade and investment. The UK has urged Ukraine to continue with its political and economic reforms, so it is able to exploit these opportunities fully.

  Accession to the World Trade Organisation—an area where the UK is giving bilateral technical assistance—will be a vital step in this direction.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria will be used in determining the date for resuming the EU-Sudan dialogue; if he will outline the criteria by which future progress will be measured; and if he will make a statement. [25374]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At the end of 2001 the EU and the Sudanese Government agreed to continue and intensify the EU-Sudan dialogue, chaired by our ambassador during the latter half of the year, for a further 12 months. The dialogue is therefore on-going. The continued dialogue will allow for regular joint assessments of concrete and verifiable progress achieved with respect to democracy 918W
  and human rights and in the peace process. For its part, the EU agreed to achieve the launch of the Humanitarian Plus programme.

  We are pleased with the progress achieved during the course of the dialogue last year. There was some progress on human rights and democratisation. The Council of Ministers is somewhat more broadly based. The Umma Party is back and operating as a political party within Sudan. New newspapers are permitting a freer expression of political debate. There is some moderation of police and security activity, though abuses undoubtedly occur. Work continues to confront the problem of abductions. But in all these areas there is much more to do and we shall continue to address these issues during the course of this year.

  Telephone Bugging
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether hon. Members and peers have their office and home telephone conversations(a) recorded and (b) listened to on the instruction of the Foreign Office. [25007]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 366W.

  The Secretary of State alone can sign an interception of communications warrant; the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 lists the authorities that may apply for such a warrant.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation on the borders of Macedonia and the progress of British forces there. [24973]

  Mr. MacShane
  We strongly support Macedonia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. British forces in Kosovo as part of KFOR have contributed significantly to successful operations on the Macedonia/Kosovo border in which over 5,000 weapons and 224,000 rounds of ammunition have been seized and over 1,200 people detained while illegally crossing the border.

  Fiji
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent decision of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to readmit Fiji to the Councils of the Commonwealth and on the implications for UK policy on Fiji. [26094]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group discussed developments in Fiji at its meeting in London on 20 December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State represented the United Kingdom. The Group welcomed the holding of broadly free and fair elections in Fiji in August and September 2001. In recognition of this and the fact that the Fiji Government were now addressing the current uncertainty over their own constitutionality in a responsible manner, the Group decided that the conditions were now right to readmit Fiji to the Councils of the Commonwealth. However, in view
  919W
  of the remaining uncertainty over the Government's constitutionality the Group also decided that Fiji should remain on its agenda and that the Secretary General's Special Envoy, Justice Pius Langa of South Africa should remain engaged.

  In view of this we decided on 20 December to lift the targeted package of measures that the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) announced on 21 July 2000. We will once again consider applications for funding for small projects from the Fiji Government in the areas of good governance, human rights, conflict prevention and the environment. We have also ended our blanket ban on joint military exercises and visits to Fiji by Royal Navy ships—possible co-operation in this area will be considered on a case-by-case basis. And in keeping with national and EU criteria, we will continue not to issue export licences for military or security equipment where there is a clear risk that it will be used for internal repression. We will not hesitate to re-impose these measures, and even consider extending their scope, in the event that the Government of Fiji fail to meet their constitutional obligations to all of Fiji's citizens.

  Zimbabwe
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts his Department has had with UK nationals in Zimbabwe concerning their safety during the present unrest. [25420]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our high commission is in regular contact with UK nationals in Zimbabwe through its network of 92 volunteer consular wardens.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning the arrest of Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai; and what action his Department is taking to investigate this matter. [25683]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mr. Tsvangirai was temporarily arrested for allegedly possessing unlicensed radio equipment. We understand that he is challenging the validity of these charges.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he is taking of the Democracy and Economic Recovery Act 2001 in his policy towards Zimbabwe. [25693]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act asks the President of the United States to begin immediate consultations with other Governments on possible measures against the Government of Zimbabwe. We look forward to further discussions with the US authorities, when/if the Administration sign the Act into law.

  Israel
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have received from coalition partners concerning the decision by the Israeli Government to end diplomatic contact with Chairman Arafat. [25680]
  920W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Israeli Security Cabinet declared President Arafat to be "irrelevant" on 13 December. We and our EU partners have repeatedly made it clear, as stated at the Laeken European Council on 16 December, that"Israel needs the Palestinian Authority and its elected President, Yasser Arafat, as a partner".
  It remains our view that President Arafat is the only figure with whom Israel can negotiate peace.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has received concerning the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [25681]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the withdrawal of United Nations weapons inspectors in December 1998 there have been no independent inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. While we cannot therefore make any categorical assessment of current Iraqi capabilities, we judge that since 1999 Iraq has pressed ahead with its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes.

  We continue to urge Iraq to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq to disarm and monitor its ballistic missile and other weapons of mass destruction programmes as required under UN Security Council resolution 1284.

  Drug Trafficking
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he is proposing to combat international drug trafficking. [25432]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We will continue to work closely with Governments and law enforcement agencies in key counties on the main trafficking routes for illegal drugs to the UK.

  The installation of the Interim Authority in Afghanistan on 22 December 2001 provides a fresh opportunity to eliminate opium poppy cultivation from Afghanistan, recently the world's major producer of opium. We will work to develop and sustain the Interim Authority's co-operation with the international community in the fight against terrorism, drugs and organised crime.

  EU Accession
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on British(a) business and (b) jobs of the next wave of EU enlargement. [25731]

  Peter Hain
  The Government consider that the next wave of EU enlargement will have significant benefits for UK business and jobs. As a result of enlargement, UK business will have access to a single market comprising up to 450 million consumers—bigger than the US and Japan combined. This huge single market should boost trade, jobs and prosperity in all EU member states. Independent research estimates that enlargement will add around £1.75 billion to UK GDP and 1.5 per cent. to the GDP of each candidate country. It is also estimated by the
  921W
  European Round Table of Industrialists that enlargement will create over 300,000 extra jobs across the EU and two million new jobs in the candidate countries.

  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Britain is playing in helping to prepare countries applying for accession to the EU. [25433]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 576W.

  Kosovo
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent elections in Kosovo. [25430]

  Mr. MacShane
  Assembly elections were held on 17 November 2001. For the first time all the people of Kosovo were able freely to elect a representative Assembly, which met for the first time on 10 December.

  Kosovo's elected politicians can now develop the new institutions of self-government in Kosovo, in partnership with the international community.

  Middle East
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact the recent conflict in the occupied territories has had on(a) the Lebanon, (b) Syria, (c) Jordan and (d) Egypt; and if he will make a statement. [25524]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The violence in Israel and the occupied territories continues to have a destabilising effect on the middle east, and remains a source of tension around the region. It is important that the countries of the region play a constructive role in efforts to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. We will continue to play a full part in these efforts.

  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with President Bush's Administration about their present and future role in securing peace in the middle east. [25423]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary speaks to Secretary of State Colin Powell regularly on this issue, most recently on 3 January. US engagement remains central to efforts to secure a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region. We support the work of US envoy General Zinni to bring the parties back to negotiations, and will continue to work with the US and our EU partners to this end.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made towards the Israeli Government regarding the peace process in the middle east. [25461]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 19 December the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Sharon. Lord Levy met Prime Minister Sharon in Israel on the same day. We have made clear to the Israeli Government that they should support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to enforce a ceasefire. Israel should also withdraw its military forces and stop 922W
  extrajudicial killings, lift closures and restrictions, freeze settlement activity and end operations directed against the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the recent meetings in the last 12 months that have taken place between British Government Ministers and the French ambassador to the United Kingdom at which the middle east was discussed. [25460]

  Peter Hain
  The French ambassador has frequent contact with Ministers and a variety of issues are discussed on an on-going basis.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the individual terrorist organisations which operate within(a) Syria and (b) Iran. [25466]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Syria allows a number of terrorist organisations to operate from within its borders. These organisations include the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation—General Command. Hizballah also operates from within Syria. The UK has proscribed an element of Hizballah, its External Security Organisation, as terrorist. Syria is however co-operating with the international fight against terrorism and has taken some steps to rein in these organisations. Iran does not host terrorist organisations in the same way. However we have long-standing concerns about Iran's record of support for groups which use violent methods to oppose the Middle East Peace Process, including Hizballah.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of which organisations were responsible for the terrorist attack on a bus in the West Bank on Wednesday 12 December 2001. [25465]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack on the bus in the West Bank on 12 December.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of which organisations were responsible for the terrorist attack in the Israeli town of Afula on Tuesday 27 November. [25464]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the shooting in Afula on 27 November.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of the Ivory Coast to implement the recommendation of the Reconciliation Forum, to allow Alassane Ouattara to contest future elections by granting him a certificate of nationality; and if he will make a statement. [24362]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have followed the progress of the National Reconciliation Forum (NRF) closely. We noted with satisfaction that the main political figures attended the Forum and that several recommendations have been made to the Government of Cöte d'Ivoire. We consider that the Forum has achieved
  923W
  positive results and that it paves the way for further progress towards reconciliation and political stability in Cöte d'Ivoire.

  Nationality is a matter for each State to determine We note that the question of Mr. Ouattara's nationality has been referred to the Ivorian courts. Whatever their ruling, we consider it is important for democracy and stability in Cöte d'Ivoire that Mr. Ouattara and the Rassemblement des Republicains should be able to play an active role in Ivorian politics.

  Romania
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Romanian Government regarding their embargo on inter-country adoption which prohibits United Kingdom citizens from adopting Romanian children. [25152]

  Peter Hain
  We have expressed our support for the one-year moratorium on international adoptions from Romania announced on 13 July following a recommendation from the European Parliament. There were allegations that the existing adoption system had become very corrupt, and the Romanians needed time to rewrite the law on adoption and get the necessary framework in place to support it. They are being helped in this by the UK Department for International Development, as well as UNICEF, the EU and USAID.

  Liberia
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest assessment is of likely political developments in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [25422]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In recent weeks the security situation within Liberia has deteriorated. In north-western Liberia fighting has escalated between Guinean backed dissident groups and Liberian forces loyal to President Taylor. There is a risk that this increased instability could destabilise the sub-region, including neighbouring Sierra Leone, and have serious humanitarian consequences. Regional peace is dependent on the restoration of stability in Liberia, and we will continue working towards that goal.

  In March 2001 we co-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 1343 imposing sanctions on Liberia. We are encouraged that Liberia has taken some positive steps, including rescinding the expulsion of the Sierra Leonean and Guinean ambassadors, and granting an amnesty to political opponents accused of treason. But as the UN Expert Panel Report on sanction made clear in October 2001, President Taylor has not fundamentally changed his behaviour. In response to this report, the UK is actively pursuing further actions in the Security Council. The EU recently held talks with Liberia to further increase pressure on President Taylor to stop backing rebel groups and start implementing democratic principles, good governance and respect for human rights. Through various diplomatic channels, including the EU presidency representative to the Mano River Union (MRU: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone), the UN and ECOWAS, we are encouraging the leaders of the MRU countries to establish a meaningful dialogue.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is towards Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [25406]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 582W.

  Colombia
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Colombian Government about the situation in Barrancabermeja and Magdalene Medio. [25363]

  Mr. MacShane
  I had comprehensive discussion about the situation in Barrancabermeja and Magdalene Medio with the Colombian Government during my visit to Colombia, which included Barrancabermeja, in October 2001. I specifically discussed the security situation in the town and its surrounds with the Chief of Police in Barrancabermeja, as well as with the church, NGOs and human rights groups. Staff from the British Embassy in Bogota visited Barrancabermeja on a number of occasions last year.

  Angola
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support national reconciliation in Angola; and if he will make a statement. [25752]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to urge all parties to the conflict to engage in dialogue, as an essential first step towards addressing the problems in Angola. We welcome the growing contribution of the Churches and Civil Society to efforts towards national reconciliation.

  Entry Clearance
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to commission a formal study of the pre-sift system at overseas posts. [25686]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have instructed the Joint Entry Clearance Unit to arrange a review of the pre-sift process, as recommended by the Independent Monitor for entry clearance in his recent report.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if guidance has been sent to overseas posts about the authenticity of documents with(a) spelling and (b) grammatical errors as a result of the report of the Independent Monitor. [25685]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Entry Clearance Officers are trained to assess the authenticity of documents, including whether the standard of the English used in them is consistent with that which could reasonably be expected of the originator. In addition, further guidance on this matter is currently under consideration.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken in response to the proposal by the independent
  925W
  monitor that future statistics on entry clearance applications should allow refusal rates to be ascertained by reference to (a) gender and (b) age group. [25684]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The entry clearance software at overseas posts cannot produce statistics by reference to gender and age group. We are considering whether a revised version of the software, capable of doing so, can be developed and provided to posts this year.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Chairman Arafat regarding terrorism emanating from within the Palestinian Authority. [25462]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have repeatedly condemned terrorism, wherever it originates. We have made clear to President Arafat that the Palestinian Authority must dismantle terrorist networks, and arrest and prosecute all suspects. Lord Levy met the Palestinian Authority leadership, including President Arafat, on 18 and 19 December, and reinforced these messages.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of terrorist attacks carried out by members of the Fatah from within the Palestinian Authority since October 2000. [25463]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not always possible to determine, with certainty, the responsibility for terrorist attacks. Many attacks are unclaimed, and some claims of responsibility are unreliable. What is important is that President Arafat has committed the Palestinian Authority to an effort to prevent violence by all Palestinian groups operating from the occupied territories. We urge the Palestinian Authority to fulfil this commitment, and Israel to help create the conditions for a return to negotiations. Only a just and lasting peace can assure security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

  Great War Battlefields
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Belgian counterpart concerning the preservation for posterity of landscape features associated with battlefields of the Great War. [25390]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular contact with his Belgian counterpart at EU meetings and on other occasions. The Government and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission maintain a regular dialogue with the Belgian authorities on developments affecting war graves in Belgium.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to ensure that prisoners taken during the fighting in Afghanistan are protected from torture or death once they have surrendered. [24938]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have urged the new Afghan Interim Authority to treat humanely all those who are prisoners in their custody and to respect the principles of the Geneva Conventions.
  926W
  The UN also appealed to the Afghan forces to treat surrendering forces in accordance with international humanitarian law. Security Council resolution 1378 (2001) calls on all Afghan forces to adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights and international humanitarian law. International Committee of the Red Cross staff returned to Afghanistan in mid-November, and have been allowed access to prisoners held by the Northern Alliance.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform the workings of the Child Support Agency. [25135]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From April 2002 we will introduce a number of changes to the child support system. The changes are designed to provide a simple, clear and responsive service which will be easy to operate and easy to understand.

  The new arrangements will be introduced for new clients from April 2002. Current clients will transfer to the new scheme, from a later date, when we are sure that the new arrangements are working well.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many prosecutions for social security fraud there were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998,(c) 1999 and (d) 2000; [18509]

  (2) how many claimants were found to be illegally claiming social security benefit for a year or more in (a) 1997, (b)(c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [18508]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the duration of fraudulent claims is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In order to prepare for the implementation of the "two strike" provisions in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 we are currently improving the data sources used to compile information on prosecutions, cautions and penalties. The latest provisional information is in the table.

  Investigations

  Prosecutions

  Cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution

  Total

  Benefits Agency

  1997–98

  11,700

  —

  11,700

  1998–99

  10,238

  2,835

  13,073

  1999–2000

  9,124

  11,029

  20,153

  2000–01

  11,403

  15,555

  26,958

  Local authority

  1997–98

  700

  —

  700

  1998–99

  800

  —

  800

  1999–2000

  860

  390

  1,250

  2000–01

  1,100

  550

  1,650

  Notes:

  1. Benefits Agency investigations data are now compiled from a new data source. The figures above are provisional and may differ from those previously published.
  927W
  2. The data on cautions and penalties for 1998–99 is derived from the database proceeding the current database and there maybe some overlap with 1999–2000.

  3. Administrative Penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act (1997) with effect from December 1998.

  4. Figures are taken from local authority management information returns. It is possible that there could be some double counting with Benefits Agency data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.

  5. Data are not available for all 409 local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures have been rounded to two significant figures.

  Benefits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures social security offices use to ensure claimants of means-tested benefits do not have capital at levels which would render them ineligible for benefits. [18510]

  Malcolm Wicks
  When income-related benefits are first claimed, officials can require claimants to provide evidence of capital. Periodic checks are made to ensure that entitlement remains correct, by a variety of means including home visit, office interview, post or telephone.

  The information gathering powers contained in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 will allow authorised officers in the Department and in local authorities, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, to require financial institutions to provide information about their customers, including savings and assets. These powers will commence in the first quarter of 2002.

  Allowances
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the average processing times for claims to(a) disability living allowance, and (b) attendance allowance, in each month since January; and what were the average processing times for these benefits in each full year since 1997. [24217]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Days

  DLA actual average clearance times

  AA actual average clearance times

  2001

  January

  45.5

  28.7

  February

  44.4

  26.9

  March

  41.7

  24.9

  April

  41.4

  25.3

  May

  41.5

  25.9

  June

  43.5

  26.8

  July

  45.7

  27.1

  August

  44.6

  28.3

  September

  44.4

  28.4

  October

  46.3

  30.9

  November

  44.6

  28.2

  928W

  Actual average clearance time year to date for DLA1

  Actual average clearance time year to date for AA1

  1997–98

  37.2

  25.2

  1998–99

  35.0

  25.1

  1999–2000

  42.6

  32.1

  2000–01

  46.8

  30.5

  2001–022

  44.0

  27.6

  1 Figures as at each year end (31 March)

  2 Figures to end of November 2001

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children were living in poverty in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [22441]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional concepts, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of the environment and opportunities to learn. The third "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5260) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy.

  Sarccidosis
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the number of sarccidosis sufferers in receipt of disability living allowance. [25483]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list (i) the start date, (ii) the planned completion date, (iii) the actual completion date, (iv) the planned cost and (v) the actual cost of(a) DSS year 2000 programme, (b) site backbone upgrade, (c) CSA operations re-organisation project, (d) decision making and appeals, (e) working families tax credit, (f) resource accounting and budgeting, (g) devolution (Scotland), (h) disability living allowance administrative reforms, (i) order book control service (OBCS)—national roll-out project, (j) bereavement benefits, (k) jobseeker's allowance—new deal for partners of the unemployed, (l) the strategic debt solution project, (m) the ACCORD IS/IT supply programme (office and networks) and (n) the ITSA strategic outsourcing project. [18002]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer question 18002, on his Department's IT projects, tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon on 21 November 2001. [23923]

  Mr. McCartney
  As explained in my answer on 13 July 2001,Official Report, columns 689–90W, the increase in resources provided in Spending Review 2000 allowed the Department to expand greatly the speed and scope of our modernisation programme. The headquarters of DWP were also re-organised to focus resources more on delivery. As a result the entire programme was replanned and organised on a different basis. In the course of this work a number of existing projects merged,

  929W
  restructured, superseded or concluded. As a consequence the information sought can be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Take-up
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Daventry, (Mr. Boswell), of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 152W, how take-up of disability living allowance among eligible children is kept under review. [24246]

  Mr. McCartney
  We undertake routine monitoring of statistical information which indicates that take-up of disability living allowance continues to increase.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made on the financial impact of the introduction of the bereavement on allowance on women under 55 years of age who have been widowed since 9 April and are in receipt of incapacity benefit; [22278]

  (2) what assessment he has made on the financial impact of the introduction of the bereavement allowance on women under 55 years of age who have been widowed since 9 April. [22279]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our reforms to bereavement benefits introduced in April 2001 concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most—on immediate needs and on families with children. And for the first time these benefits are available equally to both men and women. Immediate help with costs arising on bereavement is provided by a lump sum bereavement payment of £2000—double the old widow's payment of £1000. There is a weekly benefit for widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions. The bereavement allowance is also available for 12 months, to give widows and widowers aged 45 or over without dependants time to adjust to their new circumstances.

  Women under 55 years of age who have been widowed since 9 April 2001 can claim the new bereavement benefits in the same way as anybody else. Where they are already in receipt of incapacity benefit and claim either widowed parent's allowance or bereavement allowance they will receive the higher of the two benefits to which they are entitled.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints have been reported in his Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25329]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The procedures for making complaints under the civil service code are set in the Department's staff handbook. Civil servants are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints made under paragraph 11 of the civil service code with their line manager. If for any reason this is not felt to be possible, perhaps because the line manager is part of the complaint, individuals may take their complaint to a nominated official (or officials). It is not possible to 930W
  provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made under within this Department under paragraph 11 of the code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints made under the civil service code which are resolved within the management line.

HEALTH

  Paediatric Pathologists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric pathologists practise in England; and how many practised in 1997. [24655]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Paediatric pathology is a sub-specialty of histopathology. Data are not collected for sub-specialties and the information requested is not available.

  Data for histopathology are shown in the table.

  Hospital medical staff within the histopathology specialty

  1997

  2000

  All staff

  940

  1,160

  of which:

  Consultants

  720

  860

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Medical Facilities (Sharing)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been funded by his Department to promote greater sharing of medical facilities between PCTs and health authorities using the internet. [24677]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Through the Department's Project Connect programme all health authorities primary care trusts and general practitioner practices have been given access to NHSnet (and the internet) which enables them to communicate by e-mail and also to access remote applications.

  NHSnet is the national health service's own secure intranet which has guaranteed levels of service quality that are not available on the internet.

  In addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has confirmed that all PCTs will have a centrally funded 256,000 fixed link to NHSnet and the internet to enable them to utilise facilities such as teleconferencing and telemedicine.

  Health Action Zones
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure for the Camden and Islington health action zones has been since its inception; and what spending is planned for this financial year. [25827]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since its inception in April 1999, Camden and Islington health action zone has received over £5.2 million in direct funding. In 2002–03 the HAZ will receive at least £1.5 million.
  931W
  In addition, Camden and Islington health authority received £2.7 million targeted funding for health authorities in HAZs between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. In 2001–02 and for 2002–03 this was subsumed within the health inequalities adjustment, Camden and Islington HA' s share of which was £3.1 million and £3.3 million respectively.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time was from seeing a GP on(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient lists for cardiology patients in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [24582]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the tables. The average waiting time for both people seeking in-patient treatment and those on out-patient lists for cardiology has fallen over the past 12 months.

  Estimated average (median) waiting time for first out-patient appointment, cardiology specialty, England

  Trust based

  Quarter

  Average (median) waiting time (weeks)

  September 2000

  8.64

  December 2000

  8.05

  March 2001

  7.93

  June 2001

  7.20

  September 2001

  7.09

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Estimated average (median) waiting time for first in-patient appointment, cardiology specialty, England

  Trust based

  Quarter

  Average (median) waiting time (months)

  September 2000

  2.70

  December 2000

  2.72

  March 2001

  2.63

  June 2001

  2.67

  September 2001

  2.64

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH07

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to develop national occupational standards in mental health; and if he will make a statement. [24993]

  Jacqui Smith
  Through the health care national training organisation, Healthwork UK, in conjunction with the training organisation for social services we are developing national occupational standards across all ages in mental health on a United Kingdom wide basis. A functional map of the standards was produced in the workforce action team report published in August 2001 and the work to fully develop the standards is being taken forward with a view to completing the task by March 2003.

  By describing best practice, the aim of the work is to improve the competence of the workforce to provide better services to individuals with mental health needs and their carers.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home establishments have(a) closed and (b) opened in East Sussex in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [25614]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with the number of new registrations, are presented in the table. Information was first collected in this form for the year ending 31 March 1999. Information for the year ending 31 March 2001 is not yet available.

  Table 1: Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in East Sussex—Year ending 31 March

  1999

  2000

  Number of establishment closures

  Residential1

  48

  69

  Nursing2

  5

  10

  Number of new registrations

  Residential1

  44

  24

  Nursing2

  4

  4

  1 East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Council

  2East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants are available to(a) local authorities and (b) private nursing and residential homes to assist in the provision of additional places in such homes; when the most recent invitations to bid for such grants were issued and to whom; what resources are available for such grants; when bids close and decisions will be made on bids; and if he will make a statement. [24948]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have recently announced that the resources which the Department is making available for social care will be increasing by 6.5 per cent. next year. Local councils will decide how to use these additional resources, most of which can be used for the provision of residential or nursing care. Resources are generally allocated to local councils by formulae rather than on a bidding basis. The Department does not make any grants direct to private sector homes.

  Surplus Estate Sales
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's standard guidance for good practice in the advertising and sale of surplus estate. [25509]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department follows guidance relating to the disposal of surplus property contained in Government Accounting, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  National health service bodies are required to follow guidance on the disposal of surplus property in Estatecode. A copy of the 1995 version, produced by NHS Estates, is in the Library, and an updated version is available in the publications and guidance section under "Downloadable Guidance" at www.nhsestates.gov.uk. A hard copy will be placed in the Library when it is printed.

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress and timescale of the PFI scheme for additional doctors' and nurses' accommodation at Stoke Mandeville hospital. [25511]

  Ms Blears
  There is no private finance initiative scheme for additional doctors' and nurses' accommodation at Stoke Mandeville hospital. However, development proposals provide for key-worker accommodation, 27 doctors' houses and, in a separate scheme, the provision of on-call accommodation for junior doctors on the main hospital site. Both these schemes are envisaged to be available for use towards the latter part of 2003.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the legal status is of the land at Stoke Mandeville hospital which was sold to Persimmon Homes in 1998; [25510]

  (2) what the receipts were of the sale in 1998 of land at Stoke Mandeville hospital to Persimmon Homes; [25507]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report commissioned by NHS Estates into the sale in 1998 of land at Stoke Mandeville hospital to Persimmon Homes; [25506]

  (4) if the sale in 1998 by his Department of land at Stoke Mandeville hospital was advertised; [25508]

  (5) if he will make a statement on his plans for the land at Stoke Mandeville hospital which is now in his ownership. [25505]

  Ms Blears
  Two parcels of land at Stoke Mandeville hospital have been disposed of. One is subject of a number of conditions which have yet to be satisfied, so the amount of the receipts will not be known until all of the conditions have been fulfilled, and the payment due is calculated.

  The strategy for disposal of the site was agreed by the previous Anglia and Oxford regional office of the Department. It was not advertised as it was considered that a negotiated disposal was the best way of obtaining "best value" measured in terms of cash receipts, optimum site uses, the trust's reprovision plans, planning consents, programming and risk transfer.

  The Stoke Mandeville hospital site itself is owned by the Stoke Mandeville National Health Service Trust. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State retains ownership of two parcels of land there. The first is the sports ground for the disabled, to the rear of the main hospital site. This is occupied by the British Wheelchair Foundation under the terms of a long lease. It is intended that the freehold interest of this area will remain with my right hon. Friend for the immediate future.

  The second parcel of land is used for hospital purposes. It will, however, become available for redevelopment, and it is intended that some of the site will be used for additional staff residential accommodation. A review of the NHS trust's long term staff accommodation needs is currently being undertaken. The site will be marketed and disposed of subject to provision by the purchaser of an agreed number of staff residential units.
  934W
  NHS Estates carries out performance management reviews of selected land disposals which are in progress or have been completed. In this case the review is not yet complete, and the disposal is subject of on-going negotiations, so it would be premature to respond to the question.

  GPs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what health authority areas in England have recently identified difficulties in recruiting general practitioners; [24006]

  (2) what steps his Department intends to take to increase the supply of general practitioners in England. [24007]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested on health authorities that have recently identified difficulties in recruiting general practitioners is not available. Information on vacancies is available in the GP Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy Survey. Copies are available in the Library or at www.doh.gov.uk/stats/ gprrvsurvey2001.htm.

  The NHS Plan includes targets for at least 2,000 extra GPs and 450 extra GP registrars, since increased to 550, by 2004. The latest information available shows that on 30 September 2000 there had been a 9.1 per cent. increase in the number of GP registrars, to 1,659. This is the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest annual percentage increase for 20 years.

  In order to deliver the recruitment targets a number of initiatives are under way. Various recruitment and retention initiatives are being pursued that are aimed at encouraging qualified GPs into, or return to, practice. They include: the Golden Hello scheme for those GPs taking up their first substantive appointment; the highly successful GP retainer scheme on which are around 1,120 GPs; the introduction of up to 20 days a year of protected time for higher professional training to help ease the transition from training to general practice; improving working lives with new measures for maternity and paternity leave and NHS child care; and the Cabinet Office review aimed to eliminate the amount of non-clinical paperwork and bureaucracy overheads.

  Last month we announced the lifting of the funding bar on recruiting non-European Economic Area doctors to GP registrar posts. To further increase supply, the Home Office's Highly Skilled Migrant Entry Programme now includes provision to facilitate the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified overseas doctors who wish to work as general practitioners for the national health service.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the standard of general practitioner surgery; and what percentage have full disabled access and facilities; [24008]

  (2) what funds are available for improvement of (a) general practitioner surgeries and (b) disabled access and facilities at general practitioner surgeries. [24009]

  Mr. Hutton
  A study undertaken by the Valuation Office agency on behalf of the Department indicates that around 82 per cent. of general practitioner premises have good to average disabled access. General practitioners can apply to their primary care trust or group for grants
  935W
  towards the cost of improving access to and within their premises. Alternatively, GPs can owner-occupy or lease modern replacement properties that comply with access and other building standards. Costs are met from a variety of national health service funding sources.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental practices there are in Stafford constituency; and how many are accepting new NHS patients. [11179]

  Ms Blears
  There are 16 dental practices in the Stafford constituency. Of these, one is currently accepting all categories of registrations, three will accept exempt adults and children, six will accept children and the remaining six are not currently accepting registrations.

  There is also a Dental Access Centre in Stafford, which is open seven days a week, providing access to dental care for people not registered with a dentist. In addition, there is a Dental Access Centre in Cannock which, although not located within the Stafford constituency, may be appropriate for some people who live on that side of the Stafford constituency, and which is open most week days and some Saturdays.

  Ward Improvements
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what examination he has made of the use made by acute hospital trusts of the money given to ward managers for ward improvements. [9868]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ward environment budgets were introduced on 1 October 2000. They give the ward sisters and charge nurses that manage a ward a minimum of £5,000 a year to improve patient care and improve the working lives of staff. An independent MORI telephone survey in mid December 2000 showed over 70 per cent. of ward sisters and charge nurses had been able to improve the ward environment in the two months since the budget had been launched. The majority of purchases provided greater comfort for patients as well as visual improvements to the ward environment.

  In keeping with the stated objective of reducing bureaucracy, no further surveys have been undertaken since that date.

  Lung Disease
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a national service framework for lung disease; and if he will make a statement. [17447]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently no plans to establish a National Service Framework for lung disease. The NSF for Older People recognises the importance of respiratory diseases to the health and well being of older people. The NSF provides for a 10-year developing framework for action across health and social care, and within this arthritis and respiratory disease in older people are the next priorities for future work. The focus of this will be older people, but the service model will have implications for and apply to all who need these services, regardless of their age.
  936W
  There are a range of Government initiatives already in place which take a preventive approach to lung disease and have long-term objectives to improve treatment and care. These include the investment of £53 million in smoking cessation services. Smoking is the major cause of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In addition the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been asked to prepare clinical guidelines for the NHS for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer and the management and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Allowances
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the total annual value of London weightings and London living allowances for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [6860]

  Estelle Morris
  As at 30 November 2001, the total value of London weightings and London allowance being paid to Department for Education and Skills staff is £19,760 per annum.

  London weightings and London allowance have been consolidated into the basic pay of staff in the Department for Education and Skills, with the exception of 11 senior civil servants who have opted to receive the allowances separately.

  School Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list each initiative by her Department that has attracted additional funding for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools between 1997–98 and 2001–02, indicating the overall budget for each initiative and the number of schools that have participated in each one. [16607]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average real term base line funding per pupil was at(a) primary and (b) secondary level in each of year between 1997–98 and 2001–02, excluding additional funding that was made available to all pupils in all schools. [16605]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Real terms (2000–01 prices) SSA per pupil

  £

  Primary

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,280

  2,980

  1998–99

  2,340

  3,040

  1999–2000

  2,410

  3,080

  2000–01

  2,470

  3,180

  2001–02

  2,520

  3,230

  Change

  240

  250

  937W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total amount of additional funding made available by the DFEE/DFES per pupil was at(a) primary and (b) secondary level between 1997–98 and 2001–02, excluding amounts made available to all pupils in all schools. [16606]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Estimated total additional funding1 £ per pupil (cash terms)

  Primary

  Secondary

  1997–98

  10

  10

  1998–99

  20

  20

  1999–2000

  50

  40

  2000–01

  150

  130

  2001–02

  240

  210

  1 Non-SF grants and Standards Fund

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest £10

  2. Grant figures are drawn from the relevant parts of the answer to PQ16607.

  3. Capital funding is excluded from these figures.

  4. Primary and Secondary figures are estimates because a split of grants between sectors is not available: the data are not collected in that way.

  5. Figures for 2001–02 include the Teachers Pay Reform Grant, the actual figures for which will not be known for a while, but Threshold costs for each academic year are expected to be in the region of £450 million.

  6. Figures for 2001–02 include latest figures for Transitional Funding Grant and Transitional Insurance Grant (both former GM schools). These are subject to change.

  7. The pupil numbers used in the calculations are those aged 5–10 (primary) and those aged 11–15 (secondary)—as defined in each year's SSA settlement.

  Early Years Excellence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 345W, on Early Years Excellence, (a) on what date and (b) by what means her Department fulfilled the promise made in the letter of 20 June to Somerford Infant School concerning their expression of interest. [18662]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: The further guidance setting out criteria and detailed requirements for joining the Early Excellence Centre (EEC) programme was issued on 5 October. This explained that those whose expressions of interest were assessed as category 2 should submit a fresh expression of interest, taking into account the outline feedback provided. Somerford Infant School was assessed as category 2. The Department has not received a further expression of interest from Somerford Infant School. Nevertheless, the Department plans to follow up Somerford's interest along with others in a similar position.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 81W, on departmental underspend, if she will break down the main projects for which the
  938W
  unspent £1.44 billion available in end-year flexibility from the former Department for Education and Employment had been intended in financial year 2000–01. [22774]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department is voted funds for its programmes rather than individual projects. The End Year Flexibility (EYF) is therefore calculated on the total Departmental Expenditure Limit aggregates.

  £715 million of the available EYF can, however, be analysed into a number of separate elements as follows: £220 million for the European Structural Funds, £106 million for the Employment Opportunities Fund, £87 million for the Capital Modernisation Fund, Non-Discretionary Other (primarily Student Loans) of £172 million, Ofsted £1 million and Sure Start £129 million.

  The remaining £739 million of Discretionary Capital and Other (current) underspends can be analysed against the Departmental objectives as follows: against Objective 1: Early years and schools, were £441 million; Objective 2: Lifelong Learning, £233 million; Objective 3: Helping people without a job into work, £22 million; and on activities supporting all objectives, including administration costs, £43 million.

  During 2001–02 this EYF has been and will be drawn on to fund additional expenditure on Departmental programmes. Following the machinery of government changes the EYF on European Structural Funds and the Employment Opportunities Fund transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions. Discussions are taking place with other Government Departments concerning the amount of Discretionary Other EYF required to support the services transferred.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 81W, on departmental underspend, on what specific purposes the remaining £530 million left from underspend in 2000–01 will be spent in the current financial year. [22776]

  Estelle Morris
  Of the £530 million, £129 million relates to Sure Start, £1 million to Ofsted, £172 million relates to non-discretionary other (primarily student loans) and £228 million to discretionary capital and other, including administration costs. The funds will be drawn down to support departmental programmes as required to meet priorities and pressures.

  Graduate Earnings
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated about changes to average graduate earnings since 1997. [23404]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on estimated average graduate earnings is available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The table shows estimated average gross weekly earnings of graduates with a first degree or above, in full-time employment, taken from the spring quarters of the LFS. The figures show that, in cash terms, estimated average weekly earnings have increased every year between 1997 and 2001.
  939W

  Average gross weekly earnings for graduates with a first degree or above, in full-time employment

  Year

  £

  1997

  510

  1998

  520

  1999

  540

  2000

  570

  2001

  580

  Note:

  Figures are in cash terms.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring quarters, for Great Britain

  Student Loans
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of recipients of student loans are in arrears with their repayments. [23496]

  Margaret Hodge
  The only borrowers who were in arrears at the end of 2000–01 were those who had taken out mortgage-style loans which were in place before the introduction of income contingent loans in 1998. At the end of financial year 2000–01 some 13 per cent. of borrowers with student loan accounts in repayment status were in arrears with their repayments. Repayment from borrowers with income contingent loans are collected through the tax system. As these repayments are mostly collected by employers who are legally obliged so to do, the borrower cannot go into arrears.

  Pupil Vacancies
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupil vacancies there are in secondary schools in London; and if she will make a statement. [23648]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collect this information. The Government believe that decisions concerning the supply of school places are best taken locally by the main partners in the provision of education, who have knowledge of local needs. It is for local education authorities to plan and keep under review the supply of school places and to ensure there is sufficient provision to meet demand. They must publish annually a School Organisation Plan setting out how they plan to deal with any surplus or deficit of places over a five-year rolling period.

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  Outcome

  1996–97

  Burnham Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Sports

  Unsuccessful

  Chatham Grammar School for boys

  Kent

  Sports

  Unsuccessful

  Bournemouth School

  Bournemouth

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Newport Girls' High School

  Shropshire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucestershire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Slough Grammar School

  Berkshire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Aylesbury Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Technology

  Successful

  Beaconsfield High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Technology

  Successful

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Cumbria

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  Queen Mary's Grammar School

  Walsall

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  1997–98

  Chatham Grammar School for boys

  Kent

  Sports

  Unsuccessful

  Dr. Challoner's High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Newstead Wood School for Girls

  Bromley

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucestershire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of applications for specialist school status have been successful where the school in question is(a) a grammar school, (b) a comprehensive school and (c) a secondary modern or high school. [24087]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Information covering designations from September 1997 on the percentage of successful applicants for specialist school status of grammar, comprehensive and modern schools is set out in the following table.

  Grammar

  Comprehensive

  Modern

  1996–97

  Applications

  13

  313

  12

  Designations

  2

  71

  2

  Success Rate (Percentage)

  15.4

  22.7

  16.7

  1997–98

  Applications

  7

  205

  7

  Designations

  0

  80

  3

  Success Rate (Percentage)

  0

  39.0

  42.9

  1998–99

  Applications

  4

  111

  4

  Designations

  1

  75

  1

  Success Rate (Percentage)

  25.0

  67.6

  25.0

  1999–2000

  Applications

  13

  250

  12

  Designations

  8

  120

  4

  Success Rate (Percentage)

  61.5

  48.0

  33.3

  2000–01

  Applications

  12

  314

  22

  Designations

  6

  130

  14

  Success Rate (Percentage)

  50.0

  41.4

  63.6

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list applications for specialist school status which have been made by grammar schools; and what the subject specialism and the outcome of the application was in each case. [24088]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: A list of applications to become specialist schools from September 1997 which have been made by grammar schools, together with information about the specialism for which they applied and the outcome of these applications is given in the table.

  941W

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  Outcome

  Slough Grammar School

  Berkshire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Cumbria

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  St. Anselm's College

  Wirral

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  1998–99

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucestershire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Slough Grammar School

  Berkshire

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Weald of Kent Grammar School for Girls

  Kent

  Language

  Successful

  1999–2000

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls

  Birmingham

  Arts

  Unsuccessful

  Cotham School

  Bristol

  Arts

  Successful

  King Edward VI Aston School

  Birmingham

  Sports

  Successful

  Bournemouth School

  Bournemouth

  Language

  Successful

  Chatham Grammar School for Boys

  Medway

  Language

  Successful

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucestershire

  Language

  Successful

  St. Anselm's College and Upton Hall School (joint)

  Wirral

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Wirral Grammar School for Girls

  Wirral

  Language

  Successful

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  Essex

  Technology

  Successful

  The King Edward VI Camp Hill School

  Birmingham

  Technology

  Successful

  Wallington High School for Girls

  Sutton, London Borough of

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  2000–01

  Sir Henry Floyd Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Arts

  Unsuccessful

  Dr. Challoner's High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Sports

  Successful

  Skegness Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Sports

  Successful

  Aylesbury High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Language

  Successful

  Pate's Grammar School

  Gloucestershire

  Language

  Successful

  Slough Grammar School

  Slough

  Language

  Unsuccessful

  Southend High School for Boys

  Southend

  Language

  Successful

  Boston Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  John Hampden Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Technology

  Successful

  St. Anselm's College

  Wirral

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  Upton Hall School

  Wirral

  Technology

  Unsuccessful

  Some schools appear twice in the table. This is where the school has submitted a subsequent application following an unsuccessful bid in a previous year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria she uses in determining the briefing information she provides to external organisations about hon. Members when seeking responses to written questions. [24103]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are no set criteria or guidelines used to determine the information provided to external organisations about hon. Members when seeking responses to written questions.

  Common practice is to give the name of the Member together with basic information about other similar questions that they have asked in the past, and any known interest they may have in the subject.

  Higher Education
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to increase participation in higher education. [25532]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our programmes to raise standards in schools and colleges will have a major impact on increasing participation. The Excellence Challenge 942W
  programme, including the Aim Higher advertising campaign and roadshow, will encourage more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter HE. Foundation degrees will also encourage more people, especially those already in work, to take HE qualifications.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils from the Buckingham constituency went on to higher education in each year since 1999. [24863]

  Margaret Hodge
  Figures for the number of school pupils who go on to higher education are not collated centrally on a constituency basis. The latest available figures for England, showing the number of UK domiciled entrants to undergraduate courses over the past five years, are given in the table. The increase in entrants in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before entrant numbers started to increase again in 1999–2000.

  UK domiciled entrants to undergraduate courses, England

  Year

  Entrants1

  1996–97

  510,000

  1997–98

  514,500

  1998–99

  501,500

  1999–2000

  516,600

  2000–01

  538,600

  1 As at 1 December

  Learning Mentors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Learning Mentors are working in secondary schools in the constituency of Buckingham. [24865]

  Mr. Timms
  There are currently no Learning Mentors working in schools in the constituency of Buckingham. Our support for Learning Mentors is focused on schools in disadvantaged city authorities as part of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) programme, and upon schools in Excellence Clusters which cover smaller pockets of disadvantage.

  Secondary Schools (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average(a) class size and (b) pupil: teacher ratio in secondary schools in Hertfordshire in each year since 1983. [25243]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average class size and pupil: teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools1 for Hertfordshire local education authority at January each year 1983 to 2001

  Average class size for

  1 teacher classes

  All classes

  Pupil: teacher ratio

  2001

  21.0

  21.1

  16.7

  2000

  20.8

  21.1

  16.6

  1999

  20.6

  21.2

  16.3

  1998

  20.2

  20.5

  16.1

  1997

  20.3

  20.9

  15.9

  1996

  20.2

  20.8

  15.7

  1995

  20.0

  20.6

  15.5

  1994

  20.1

  20.6

  15.7

  1993

  19.9

  20.4

  15.7

  1992

  19.8

  20.4

  15.8

  1991

  19.5

  20.4

  15.4

  1990

  19.2

  20.1

  15.1

  1989

  19.0

  20.3

  15.1

  1988

  19.1

  19.8

  15.4

  1987

  19.3

  19.7

  15.5

  1986

  19.6

  20.4

  15.9

  1985

  19.5

  20.1

  16.0

  1984

  19.4

  20.1

  16.1

  1983

  19.3

  19.9

  16.2

  1 Includes middle schools deemed secondary.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will fully reimburse colleges which have honoured courses applied for before the deadline for students with individual learning awards. [25282]

  John Healey
  I am now able to confirm that initial payments to the majority of providers who submitted claims up to 21 November was made on 20 December. This will help a significant number of providers meet immediate cash flow needs and, I hope, settle some of the concerns they may have had. We are continuing to work 944W
  on validating the claims made after 21 November and on the mechanism for dealing with learning booked on the ILA system up to 23 November. Once we are satisfied that eligible learning has taken place in accordance with the rules of the programme, we will then be able to make arrangements for future payment to providers.

  Learning that was not booked onto the ILA system before the programme was closed on 23 November will not be eligible for a discount.

  Pupils (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to bring spending per pupil in Herefordshire closer to the average for the shire counties; and if she will make a statement. [25314]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are currently working up proposals, in partnership with local government and other education interests, for the introduction of a new funding system in 2003–04. We are taking a fresh and objective look at what provision is needed, and at the additional costs some authorities undoubtedly face. We want a system that is both fair and clear.

  The new system will consist of a basic entitlement per primary or secondary school pupil, with enhancements only for authorities where significant deprivation adds to costs, or schools need to pay more to recruit and retain staff.

  Special Education Grant
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to pay a special education grant to Herefordshire for the 2002–03 financial year; and if she will make a statement. [25315]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002–03 there is over £1.3 billion extra in Education Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs); a further increase in Standards Fund grant of almost £160 million; and an increase in the direct grant for schools of 2.75 per cent. The scale of these increases means there is less need for special grant support from Government and we have no plans to pay such a grant to Herefordshire for 2002–03.

  Urban Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are managed by her Department; how much each scheme has available to invest; what issues each scheme aims to tackle; and how much has been spent annually since 1997(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Teesside, (c) in Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough councils and (d) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [25482]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills' programmes contribute to the regeneration of all deprived neighbourhoods by raising the educational attainment, skills and aspirations of children, young people and adults.
  945W
  The Department works with other Government Departments to tackle the causes and effects of social exclusion and ensure that all mainstream policies and programmes contribute to urban regeneration.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 20 November 2001, Official Report, columns 253–54W. In this reply I provided levels of funding for the initiatives listed by the Cabinet Office Regional Co-ordination Unit as being the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to extend the education maintenance allowance to the whole of England; [25525]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the working of the education maintenance allowance in (a) Stoke-on-Trent, North and (b) the UK. [25528]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Decisions on the future of the education maintenance allowance (EMA) will be taken in the light of findings from the current evaluation of the pilot scheme. Stoke-on-Trent is one of the areas where EMA is being evaluated, although our researchers are publishing their reports for the pilot scheme as a whole, rather than for individual areas.

  As to the UK position, the Scottish Executive are piloting a variant of the EMA scheme in four local authority areas. The Scottish scheme is currently in its third year and will be evaluated in 2002. There is no EMA scheme running in Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she proposes to give commencement approval to the plan submitted to her in July for a Sure Start scheme for Blakelaw and Cowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne. [25612]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Sure Start plan for Newcastle Cowgate and Blakelaw was approved on 17 December 2001.

  Pupil Exclusion
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded permanently from school in each local authority in Greater London in each year since 1997. [25814]
  946W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of permanent exclusions from schools1 in each local education authority area within Greater London

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  England

  12,668

  12,298

  10,438

  8,323

  London

  2,193

  2,027

  1,782

  1,289

  Inner London

  771

  756

  639

  516

  Camden

  71

  50

  32

  22

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hackney

  41

  46

  36

  31

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  72

  52

  48

  21

  Haringey

  49

  46

  43

  25

  Islington

  46

  47

  36

  20

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24

  38

  29

  24

  Lambeth

  63

  62

  40

  31

  Lewisham

  60

  77

  65

  75

  Newham

  40

  54

  54

  33

  Southwark

  93

  96

  108

  69

  Tower Hamlets

  64

  49

  32

  31

  Wandsworth

  91

  76

  76

  94

  Westminster

  57

  63

  40

  39

  Outer London

  1,422

  1,271

  1,143

  773

  Barking and Dagenham

  89

  47

  39

  31

  Barnet

  91

  77

  42

  57

  Bexley

  63

  72

  61

  33

  Brent

  99

  97

  77

  57

  Bromley

  99

  93

  87

  28

  Croydon

  138

  108

  131

  87

  Ealing

  91

  82

  74

  27

  Enfield

  102

  87

  76

  73

  Greenwich

  79

  61

  79

  43

  Harrow

  59

  60

  42

  39

  Havering

  56

  70

  41

  34

  Hillingdon

  68

  58

  66

  47

  Hounslow

  97

  71

  67

  52

  Kingston upon Thames

  35

  29

  25

  16

  Merton

  22

  36

  24

  23

  Redbridge

  34

  35

  42

  29

  Richmond upon Thames

  59

  54

  45

  25

  Sutton

  36

  45

  39

  19

  Waltham Forest

  105

  89

  86

  53

  1 Includes maintained primary and secondary schools and special schools

  Students
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the drop-out rate for first year students at English universities in each of the last three years was; and if she will make a statement. [25826]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest "Performance Indicators in Higher Education" published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) last month show that the proportion of entrants to full-time first degree courses in 1998–99 who did not continue beyond the first year was 10 per cent., the same proportion as in the two previous academic years. HEFCE's figures indicate that around one fifth of these students will re-enter HE after a year out. Although the UK has the second highest completion rate among OECD countries, the Government are not complacent. HEFCE have been asked to report on the measures being taken to bear down on the drop-out rate. HEFCE have produced an interim report and are expected to produce their complete report shortly.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

GCSE Vocational Courses: Funding
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to fund the new vocational GCSE courses for 14 to 16 year-olds in maintained secondary schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the department will fund an extensive programme of training and support for schools and colleges to coincide with the introduction of the new GCSEs in September 2002. This will help to prepare all those offering the new qualification and will include staff training and free support materials. In addition, a general programme aimed at increasing work-related learning opportunities at key stage 4, with funding of £38 million, will be made available in 2002–04.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can I press her further as regards precisely what is being proposed? She will know that schools have relatively little in the way of surplus funds and badly need to know whether this money constitutes a special line of funding, such as a challenge fund, or is to come through the standards fund. Will the £38 million really be made available as an extra resource for schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, funding of £1.7 million will be made available specifically for the new GCSEs. That money will be used to provide conferences, workshops, advice and support networks, as well as teaching and other materials directly through the Learning and Skills Development Agency. The £38 million I outlined in my original response will pay for up to 40,000 part-time vocational placements, support for local planning, training for teachers and co-ordinators specifically in schools, supporting young people with, for example, equipment costs and providing funding for specialist courses for those schools wishing to emphasise a particular subject area. I hope that that explanation is sufficiently explicit for the noble Baroness.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to what has taken place across the Channel where specialist vocational courses are devoted to vocational qualifications which, in their turn, are highly regarded? Does the noble Baroness agree that insufficient regard is being
552
paid to what is happening in other European countries? The new proposals strike me as being a mere palliative. The great problem with regard to English education is that the authorities have tried to make vocational courses parasitic on academic courses. Is the Minister prepared to give real thought to vocational courses?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on many occasions we have debated in your Lordships' House the need to ensure that those who choose to take vocational courses should see them as just as relevant and valid as those who choose to take other courses. The main thrust of our approach seeks to emphasise that this development is very much concerned with equivalence; that is, parity of esteem and parity of approach. That is why, for example, the grading system A to G will be applied to the new GCSE courses, thus ensuring that that parity is achieved.
We are always keen to look to the experience of other countries and to learn lessons from that. We keep a watchful eye on what has proved successful in other European countries.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I take some comfort from the Minister's reply to the Question on vocational courses. However, is it not a fact that so large a proportion of the educational budget is being held back both nationally and locally that schools are finding it extremely difficult to get on with the business of delivering many of their core functions?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that noble Lords from all sides of the House would agree that it is important that schools should be able to take responsibility for managing their own budgets. Indeed, we have devolved a huge amount of finance directly to schools. The main thrust of holding funds centrally is specifically in order to tackle at local educational authority level issues such as special educational needs, school transport and so forth. It is essential to ensure that strategies for those matters are put in place at a national level in order that services can reach every child across the country.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, have the Government given any consideration to the question of where the teachers are to come from for these vocational courses? FE colleges are already finding it difficult to recruit teachers for some of their own vocational courses. Will schools be competing with FE colleges to recruit the same teachers? Furthermore, has any consideration been given to offering teacher training to graduates in suitable subjects, tints enabling them to move into this field?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is interesting that the response rate from FE colleges that wish to become involved in our new proposals is running at over 95 per cent. Noble Lords will perhaps be aware that the proposal to offer increased flexibility to 14 to 16 year-olds allows for partnerships to be established between FE colleges and schools, thus

553
creating the conditions that will deliver the programmes. A great deal of enthusiasm has been expressed for this approach.
As I mentioned, part of the funding will be used to address questions of teacher resources, not the least of which will be to examine the need for additional training. The more general point about teacher numbers has been made previously in your Lordships' House. As always, I would reply by saying that the Government are mindful of the need to ensure that the right numbers and quality of teachers are in place. Our programmes support that aim in terms of golden handshakes and so forth.
Lord Elton: My Lords, assuming that a number of the subjects to be taken as vocational educational qualifications are practical, a considerable amount of equipment will be needed in secondary schools in order to cope with the new demands. I believe that I heard the noble Baroness tell the House that £1.8 million would be made available for this purpose. I cannot recall exactly how many secondary schools there are in England and Wales, but I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell the House what will be the average figure received by each school out of that £1.8 million. I do not believe that the sum will be all that large.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out that the new GCSEs will cover extremely practical subjects. I can describe them briefly as art and design, business, engineering, health and social care, information and communications technology, leisure and tourism and manufacturing and science. Not only the £1.7 million that I mentioned earlier will be made available to provide training and support. From within the £38 million that is to be made available over the coming two years, we anticipate that the average partnership—the link to be created between FE colleges and schools—will receive around £100,000. From that funding, we would expect around one-third of pupils involved in the partnership to be working specifically on the new GCSEs. I have already mentioned to noble Lords that equipment will be made available through that funding, guaranteed to students.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can the noble Baroness advise the House why music is not included on the list that she read out?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, music is a GCSE subject in any event. These are the new vocational GCSEs. I anticipate that the reason music is not included is because it is already a GCSE subject—and an important one.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister say how much money local education authorities are expected to find to complement the use of the £38 million to which she referred?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, £38 million is the amount needed to develop the
554
scheme. So far as I am aware—and I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and other Members of the House if I am wrong—it is not anticipated that LEAs will have to put huge resources into it. LEAs and the learning and skills councils, of course, will take responsibility for students beyond the age of 16. They will be constantly looking in their areas for ways in which to enhance the vocational and other studies of students—as happens already, in any event. This is specific money designed to support the new strategy. It will be a helpful contribution to it.

Kyoto Protocol
2.38 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the state of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, following the Marrakech Conference in November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the agreement reached at Marrakech on a set of detailed rules for implementing the Kyoto Protocol should pave the way for its ratification and entry into force. The UK intends to ratify, along with our EU partners, in time to allow entry into force before the World Summit on Sustainable Development later this year. We are encouraging others to meet the same timetable.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the very positive attitude that they have taken towards the Kyoto Protocol and on the actions that they have taken to persuade other countries to do likewise. Can the noble Lord indicate what is the procedure for ratification by the UK Government and whether there will be an opportunity for a full debate on the subject before ratification takes place? Secondly, can he advise on the development of the attitude of the United States towards this problem? The US has indicated a fairly negative attitude; has this in any way been modified?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as concerns the ratification process, there will need to be an EU decision because we wish to proceed with our EU partners. The ratification decision here will need to be taken around the end of June/early July, in time for the Johannesburg summit in early September. This would leave time for a debate—but, of course, debates in this House are not matters for myself but for the House authorities.
So far as concerns the United States, it has demonstrated very clearly that it does not wish to proceed with the ratification of Kyoto. It is undertaking, internally within the administration, a review of climate change policy. That review is on-going but it has obviously been delayed by other events recently. We are expecting that review of policy to be

555
positive and constructive, although it will not lead, I fear, to the US re-engaging in time for Johannesburg or at any foreseeable point in the Kyoto process.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given the major efforts that we in Britain and the rest of Europe—painful efforts in many cases—are making to deal with the problem and the protocol, can the Minister indicate how, and the time-scale within which, major developing countries such as India and China will be brought eventually within the protocol?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, with their populations and speed of development, both India and China are important to the process. However, it is worth re-emphasising that the level of emissions per head within those countries is substantially below the rate in Europe, Japan and North America. They are both influential countries, both played a positive role in Marrakech, and both are likely to be beneficiaries of the clean development mechanism under the protocol.
As to their emission rates, we want to move them to future commitments under the protocol. We need to negotiate with them and other developing countries on the role that they should play in order to mitigate their own growth in emissions. The UK is engaged in helping them to do that through our joint programmes on mainstream climate change issues and through projects and programmes within those countries.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is not the reality of the case that even the Kyoto agreement is unlikely to be implemented and that, since then, there have been substantial derogations from the Kyoto figures? Against the background of the recent leaks about the forthcoming PIU report, is not the reality that there is no hope whatever in this country of achieving the Kyoto targets—let alone the Royal Commission target of a 60 per cent reduction in CO2—without the resumption of a nuclear build? Is it not rather disturbing to recognise that there may be some obstacles in government to achieving that extremely necessary step?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken in saying that there is not a chance of the UK Government meeting our targets. We are probably better placed than any other country, in Europe or elsewhere, to meet our commitments on existing programmes and on the climate change programme that we have developed. Indeed, together with Germany, we are the most advanced in meeting those objectives. We have targets which go beyond that to reduce carbon emissions by up to 20 per cent by 2010. We are, therefore, very well placed and the issue of nuclear power or otherwise does not affect whether or not we shall meet our 2010 targets; we will do so. Meeting the Royal Commission targets—which run beyond 2010 into the middle of the century—will raise very serious issues of energy policy, which we will address. However, that issue does not arise in immediate terms and we will reach our Kyoto target.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I add to the congratulations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord
556
Ezra, to the Government on their very positive approach to the Kyoto Protocol. Is the Minister aware that many of us who are anxious to meet and exceed our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol are nevertheless very concerned about any plans to achieve that which depend on an extension of on-shore wind power? Are the Government seriously committed to research and development and to the implementation of solar and tidal energy? Can the Minister repeat the assurances that he has given the House in the past that the Government have no plans to amend, overrule or set aside the planning process which has so far frustrated many ill-conceived schemes to introduce more wind turbines into our beautiful upland landscapes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and say to him and to the right reverend Prelate that I appreciate the congratulations. Getting this process moving has been a major achievement by the Government in international circles.
The Government are anxious that all forms of alternative and renewable energy are pursued. We have in place a target of 10 per cent of our energy supply. We are developing policies to achieve that, and it will be part of our strategy to meet and to go beyond the Kyoto targets. Windpower will play a role. Clearly, we do not want to support windpower proposals that would have a seriously detrimental effect more generally on the environment. Nevertheless, there are onshore wind projects that would be allowable under our approach; we are also looking to offshore windpower to make a significant contribution. The planning process is not affected in any respect in the light of those ambitions.

European Rapid Reaction Force
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many British servicemen arid women have currently been allocated to serve with the European Rapid Reaction Force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, there is no standing European rapid reaction force; therefore, no specific UK forces have been allocated to it.
However, the United Kingdom has identified a pool of relevant forces and capabilities up to a maximum of 12,500 troops, plus, if required, up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft. Any decision by the UK Government to participate in an EU-directed operation, as well as the nature of our contribution, would depend on the circumstances at the time.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will occasion some amazement in the rest of Europe? It is apparently the

557
case that whatever RRF personnel are allocated, the number is exactly the same as is presently allocated to NATO—they will sometimes be within one force and sometimes within another. Under which general will they be allocated? Let us suppose, for example, that the RRF, including our own troops, were involved in clearing up following flooding or following the eruption of a volcano and NATO had urgent need of them for a terrorist exercise, who would say whether they would go or whether they would stay? Which general would be the senior and how would the chain of command work—bearing in mind that there must be extreme urgency in matters of this kind?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I would be surprised if there were any amazement at the Answer that I have given. So far as concerns any chain of command, any decisions about where British Armed Forces will or will not be used will be a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how the United Kingdom could possibly contribute any of its Armed Forces to the European rapid reaction force when they are fully engaged on present operational commitments? Secondly, if we are to commit our Armed Forces to this force, when will the national defence budget be increased to make that possible?
Lord Bach: My Lords, like all of us, the noble Baroness will have to wait for an answer to the second part of her question until later this year. As to her first point—I want to emphasise this because there may be some misunderstanding about it—there is no additional commitment for the deployment of United Kingdom forces on operations. The new arrangements do not mean that we shall consider operations that we should not otherwise consider. Individual countries will decide whether, when and how to commit their forces. Of course, national governments will continue to be answerable to national parliaments for the use of their forces.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister says that there will be no commitment, but there are a number of Petersberg tasks which various countries, including this one, will feel that they have to carry out. How are those Petersberg tasks to which the ERRF is committed to be carried out if there are no staff and no armed force in place?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I repeat that there is no European rapid reaction force. I must make that clear to the House; there is not one. When and if the Petersberg tasks needed to be fulfilled, it would be a matter for Her Majesty's Government to decide if and when that should take place. I emphasise that there is no extra commitment so far as concerns the Armed Forces.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the establishment and development
558
of this force might well encourage our European partners to make more realistic contributions to European and international defence and stability?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That was one of the principles behind the arrangement. The United States has argued for many years—and perhaps with some force—that European countries have not had sufficient capabilities to meet the needs of NATO. It is very important that European nations find extra capabilities to meet whatever requirements there may be. It is an essential part of this policy that European countries obtain the right capability to meet the new situation in which they find themselves.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what proportion of the 12,500 troops mentioned by the Minister might have to be committed in any sense from the Reserves?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to say how many would have to come from the Reserves. I again make the point that there will be no extra commitment. There would always be a possibility that Reserves would be used, but no more so for this force than for any other.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me. According to an article in today's edition of The Times, the contribution of Belgium, for instance, to the force in Afghanistan—which admittedly is not a Petersberg task but is nevertheless a commitment—is 30 people. Are we talking about that kind of increase in the defence capacity of our allies?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has asked that question. The article to which she refers goes on to suggest, quoting the Conservative spokesman on defence in another place, that an EU army is proposed for Afghanistan. The idea of any such army in Afghanistan is nonsense. There is no EU army, nor will one be deployed there. It is important to make the distinction between a force which includes EU member states and one which is under the political control of the European Union itself. Moreover, as has been said previously from the Government Benches in this House, the EU is not yet capable of carrying out a task of the complexity and size of that posed by the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
It may assist if I tell the House that, of the 17 countries potentially involved in sending armed forces to Afghanistan, five are not members of the EU. The suggestion that was made that somehow the British Government had a secret agenda was nonsensical. I am sure that, on consideration, the honourable Member who made it will withdraw it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I correct one point? In asking the question, I hoped I had made it clear that I recognised that we were not looking at a Petersberg task in Afghanistan, nor at an

559
EU force. My point was that if those are the kinds of numbers that individual countries can produce, it is not very encouraging.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. There have been considerable negotiations about the numbers of troops needed for the ISAF agreement. The noble Baroness should not take the various numbers that may come from various countries as an indication that that is the maximum that they could provide.

Information Commissioner
2.59 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have been given any reasons by Elizabeth France for her decision not to reapply for appointment as the Information Commissioner.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, in her letter of 15th October last year to my officials, the Information Commissioner informed them that she would not be reapplying in the competition for the post. In a message to her staff on 19th December, she said:
"When I was appointed in September 1994 I had no expectation of serving more than two terms".
She added that,
"the reasons for limiting the terms of those in positions such as mine are sound".
She said that it was,
"healthy for there to be change",
that, in a small non-departmental public body,
"two terms is, I think, enough",
and that, after eight years,
"I am sure that the organisation, the stakeholders and the postholders would all benefit from a change".
She leaves with goodwill on both sides. I personally have a very high regard for Elizabeth France, as do the Government.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that there have been serious concerns about the decision of that distinguished public servant not to seek reappointment to her important post? Can he dispute the widespread belief that an important part of the reason for Mrs France deciding to go was the Government's decision to defer the introduction of the public right of access to government information until January 2005, which means that until that date the job of the Information Commissioner is significantly downgraded?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I not only dispute that; I completely rebut it. The commissioner did not want to reapply. Her decision was not prompted by the Government's decision on the timetable for implementing the Freedom of Information Act. I asked
560
Mrs France on 10th October to let me have a paper setting out her views on a timetable. I wanted to know her views. She responded promptly, on 18th October. Her letter to my officials informing them that she would not be reapplying was sent three days earlier, on 15th October. In that letter, she offered assistance in drafting the advertisement and job description for the forthcoming exercise. As noble Lords will recall, it was not until 13th November that the first announcement of the Government's timetable was made by me to the House in response to a Question from the noble Lord. Any suggestion that her not reapplying was any kind of protest at the Government's timetable decision is nonsense. I see no basis for questioning the sincerity of what she said to her staff. There is no rabbit for the noble Lord's dog to chase.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, what are the procedures for making the appointment? Does my noble and learned friend feel that they are sufficiently transparent, given the public interest in the post?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is well recognised that public appointments may be renewed once without open appointment, but after two terms the usual practice is to have an open competition. The Home Office informed the Select Committee on Public Administration in 1999 that that would be the position. It has always been absolutely up front. Section 18(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that the office vacates two years after the date on which the Act is passed, but expressly provides that the commissioner is eligible to be reappointed. She did not seek reappointment, for the reasons that she gave to her staff. Advertisements will appear for the post of Information Commissioner next week. The selection panel, with an independent member, will be chaired by my permanent secretary, Sir Hayden Phillips. A shortlist will be made, which I shall be asked to approve, and I shall in due course inform the House of the successful candidate.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that, in view of the very wide exceptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act, it is vital that the Information Commissioner should have the robust independence and wisdom demonstrated by the present commissioner throughout her distinguished terms of office? Will he do his best to ensure that her successor is as independent, wise and effective as she has been so that we can begin to have more confidence in the effective coming into force of the Freedom of Information Act when that eventually happens?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord's ambition and wish is shared by me 100 per cent.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recall that when the Freedom of Information Bill was going through Parliament, Mrs France's specific experience and the fact that her role would roll into the implementation of

561
the Act commended her as overseer of the Act rather than an entirely new appointment? Does he therefore believe that her resignation dangerously damages the implementation of the Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Mrs France did not resign. Her post was vacated by force of statute. She was free to reapply. I personally would have been delighted if she had reapplied. She chose not to do so for the reasons that I have already given to the House.

Civil Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for civil partnerships and with respect to the rights and obligations of civil partners; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Reform
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper The House of Lords: Completing the Reform (Cm 5291).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, let me try with candour to carve out contours for the current debate about the future of this House. Unicameralism does not have many, if it has any, serious followers, although the House of Commons, elected by popular franchise, could be said to be sufficient for our democracy. However, I believe it to be generally accepted that this House, although unelected, adds major value to our legislative and deliberative processes. It can persuade and restrain—but never compel—the other place, whose pre-eminence is firmly established and protected by the Parliament Acts. This House is therefore a check and a balance within our constitution. For those who regard the other place as excessively dominated by the executive, this House is an important restraint upon the executive, whatever party may be in power.
This House is unelected, but election is not the only route to legitimacy in our democracy. The judiciary is a distinct institution within our separation of the powers, but they are unelected—and, so far as I know, no one calls for them to be elected.
There are, I am sure, some—perhaps many—in this House who believe that to have any elected element in this House would destabilise our constitution because of a claimed-for greater legitimacy for this House to challenge the other place that would result. I acknowledge that there are some, perhaps many, who regard a hybrid House with two
562
different classes of Member as fundamentally wrong, because all Members should be seen to be of equal status.
This Government came to power in 1997 on a manifesto commitment, renewed in their manifesto of last year, that the hereditary peerage should have no privileged place, based on birth alone, in a House of Parliament. As is well known, we compromised on that principle in the last Parliament to avoid, as is equally well known, the "Somme and Passchendaele" to our legislative programme that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—who sadly has taken his leave of absence from us—promised if we did not yield a temporary right for some to remain. This is history; and the Weatherill amendment was the vehicle for 92 to remain temporarily. Your Lordships should be in no doubt that the removal of the remaining 92 is unfinished business for the Government.
Now, may I take your Lordships into my confidence? I confidently predict that this debate will not disclose any present consensus for our proposals. But let me make one other confident prediction: nor will the debate reveal any consensus around any other particular set of proposals. The reform of this House is par excellence an issue on which there are as many opinions as there are politicians to express them.
Let me in the light of what I have just said say a word or two about the spirit in which the Government approach consultation on the White Paper and this debate itself. We continue to seek consensus around compromise between a multitude of divergent views. Compromise often, perhaps almost always, gives a measure of dissatisfaction to all and perfect satisfaction to none. None the less, compromise and consensus can be compatible. A consensus to agree a compromise on the basis that that compromise is the best that can be achieved in the present circumstances—I emphasise present circumstances because we cannot and do not aim to hind our successors—is none the less a consensus for today.
That is what we continue to aim for. Our White Paper contains proposals and invites responses to them all; and we are listening, and will listen. The consultation period ends at the end of this month, and this two-day debate is a major addition to the consultation process.
May I make one plea? It is easy to knock any proposed compromise, or any component within it, but surely it is incumbent on each of your Lordships who contributes to this debate to say specifically what other compromise he or she proposes in place of the compromise that the Government have proposed, unless the proposition is that the current status quo should be maintained. That, however, would be of course unacceptable to the Government, whose manifesto commitments, powerfully endorsed by the electorate, are so clear.
The status quo would be for a continuing hereditary estate of 92 in a House of Parliament, self-perpetuating by election from the ultimate closed list of all—the hereditary peerage. I therefore urge all noble Lords who contribute not to confine themselves to saying

563
why we are wrong, but to say clearly what they believe would now be right. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition also will use the opportunity of this debate to take the House into his confidence and reveal his party's proposals.
I turn now to our main proposals, which we believe to be the right outcome for today. We took as our starting point the recommendations of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. We have not followed every detail, but we believe our basic approach to be the commission's. We started, as did the commissioners, from the role and functions that the second Chamber should perform. We concluded, as did they, that it should be a revising and deliberative assembly, not seeking to usurp the role of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber. It should have a membership appropriate to its functions, and not seek to duplicate the other place. It should be as representative as possible of the broader community in the United Kingdom, but not so constituted as to put at risk the relationship between elected Members of the Commons and their constituents, as a wholly or substantially elected House would do. We concluded that it should not be dominated by any one political party.
A major vice of the hereditary peerage in Parliament was that it gave one party—the Conservative—a permanent majority in one House of Parliament regardless of whether that party was in government or opposition. When we returned to power, in 1997, there were 477 Tory Peers and 116 Labour—that is, about four times as many Tory Peers as Government Peers. Prior to 1997, the Conservatives created twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour, despite their in-built majority from 750 hereditary Peers. Since 1997, 247 life Peers have been created, as against 387 under our predecessors, but of those 247, fewer than half—only 113—are Labour.
As of yesterday, 8th January, the make-up of the House was: Tory, 221, still the largest group; Labour, 200; Liberal Democrat, 65; Cross Bench and other, 189. The total is 675, excluding the 26 Bishops. With that history, and that current make-up, and after 100 years of one-party dominance, the charge against the Government, of packing, is to say the very least more than a little rich. I shall come in a moment to the huge decrease in the Prime Minister's powers of patronage which would result from implementing our proposals. We have also accepted the Royal Commission recommendations that independent Members should form about 20 per cent of a reformed House: about 120 out of a House, ultimately, of 600.
Next, we agreed with the Royal Commission that a second Chamber that was wholly or largely directly elected could bring it into conflict with the other place. Our system of parliamentary democracy is built on the accountability of government to the House of Commons and through that House to the people. To assume power a government must command a majority in the House of Commons; to retain it, they must retain the confidence of that House. That is what has given us stable democratic government for so long and which reform of this House must not imperil. This
564
House has nothing to do with the assumption or maintenance of power by any government. That is exclusively for the House of Commons. It would be wrong and dangerous to put the pre-eminence of the House of Commons at risk by having this House wholly or substantially directly elected so that it could maintain that it had the same, or substantially similar, political legitimacy as the House of Commons.
Thus, we have concluded that this House should remain substantially nominated, but also propose 120 elected Members as the best way of ensuring that the nations and regions feel that they are properly represented in a reformed House. That is 33 more than the Royal Commission's option B, which a majority of the commission supported.
I greatly look forward to this debate. I know that there will be some, perhaps many, who will say that our mistake was to let the electoral genie out of the lamp and that he should he put back firmly whence he came. I recall, for example, the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in that sense on 21st June 2001. I recall also the frequent attacks of my noble friend Lord Barnett upon the unwisdom of a hybrid House. However, our proposal for 120 elected to represent the nations and regions in this House, and by way of a different electoral system, will ensure that the 120 elected could not usurp the individual role of the MP in the constituencies, any more than it will give the House as a whole any ground for seeking to undermine the pre-eminence of the Commons.
But I confess that this is pragmatism based on principle. To those who say, "You should have proposed more elected", I say that the numbers would simply fail to add up if, that is, you accept the Government's position—I invite the Leader of the Opposition to confirm that he does—that the rights of all existing life Peers to be here for life must be respected.
Today we have 587 life Peers, 92 hereditaries and 26 Bishops. So the start position is 705. If we take away 92 hereditaries we are left with 613; we add 120 elected and reach a total of 733. The maximum transitional House that we contemplate is 750, reducing to 600 over 10 years. Many would say that anything in excess of 700, even on a transitional basis, is excessive.
What these figures show is that there is no scope at present for more than 120 elected. Those who say that there should be more than 120 elected should explain where the scope for them exists. All that is on the assumption that the rights of the 587 life Peers are to be respected; we believe they must. They changed the course of their own lives, in many different ways, on the basis of an undertaking that they had a seat in the second Chamber for life. However, as the White Paper shows, we are canvassing opinions on a voluntary retirement scheme.
What these figures also show is that there is precious little scope for political parties to appoint new Peers in the transitional period. Therefore it is absolutely nonsense to maintain, as some do, that the majority will be nominated by the political parties. The 120 elected is simply the maximum we can contemplate

565
today. The life Peers, as has been noted with mixed feelings in this House, will reduce in number over time at the rate of around 18 a year, and after a period of years it will no doubt be right to revisit the composition issue. So I emphasise that what we are proposing is a compromise for today, not a solution for all time.
Our proposals also signal a huge decrease in the Prime Minister's powers of patronage. Instead of being able to control all appointments to the House, he will lose all rights over the independent Members; he will lose all rights over the nominations of other parties; and most important of all, he will lose the ability to decide how many nominations his party or any other party may make. I have already said how circumscribed the opportunities will be, in practice, to make new Members so as to ensure that the House does not become of excessive size during the transition period. That will be the responsibility of the Statutory Appointments Commission.
We have, however, rejected, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, knows, one important recommendation of the Royal Commission; that the appointments commission should choose the identity of the party nominees. We do not believe that any political party should accept that an external body should choose who should represent it in a House of Parliament. I readily recognise that the Royal Commission produced a distinguished report, but here we respectfully consider it went wrong.
It is impossible to cover every issue. I have confined myself to the proposals which responses to the consultation thus far show to be perceived to be central. We make our proposals in the spirit I described at the outset and I repeat, we seek consensus based on compromise, rooted in acceptance that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons is the bedrock of our parliamentary democracy. I look forward to two days of debate.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper The House of Lords: Completing the Reform (Cm 5291).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are two good reasons why we can all see that this is an important occasion for this House. First, there are just over 80 speakers scheduled for a two-day debate. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor led on the subject. He, after all, as Mr Robin Cook told the House of Commons, is the man to whom sole credit is due for the White Paper.
I shall respond in a few moments to some details of the White Paper, although it is well known already that my sense of rapture over its content is distinctly modified. The Prime Minister claims in his foreword,
"Our mission is to equip the British people with a Parliament … fit for the 21st century".
566
If only! If that were the effect of the White Paper, then Peers on all sides might support it. But,
"fit for the 21st century",
it is not. The proposals would weaken the power of this House, entrench patronage and undermine the independence of its Members.
I say at once that my party believes that the only way to secure the lasting reform we all want to see is through cross-party consensus. The time for partisan strife on this issue is gone. That was last century's business. The Lord Chancellor made much of that again today. But the time has come to move forward. This is no time for the unilateral imposition of half-baked single party proposals.
I still believe that the noble and learned Lord was at his most statesmanlike when, in 1997, he proposed creating a Joint Committee of both Houses to prepare stage two proposals—a pledge repeated several times since. Yet whenever I or the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked for such a committee to be set up, the Government accused us of delay. If there has been any delay it has come from within government. The Government allowed a miserly 12 weeks for public consultation, across a holiday period, on Parliament's future after dithering for nearly two years following the Royal Commission report.
I hope that the Government do not see this White Paper as the last word. I hope that even now they will open multilateral discussions in both Houses; in this House that should mean including representatives from the Cross-Benches and the Bishops. The Government have never tried to achieve cross-party consensus and it would be a worthy conclusion to this debate if the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House were to make such an announcement tomorrow evening. If he does, I guarantee that my party will move constructively to play a part. If he does not, then we face a tremendous and pointless fight over these plans.
The public expect much more from their politicians. Another battle over the House of Lords will not get one patient treated more quickly, one train shifted from the sidings, one criminal swept off the streets or one more teacher in our classrooms. Instead it will reinforce the growing sense that this Government have lost their focus on the real issues the country want addressed.
The Conservative Party will meet the challenge set out by the White Paper and the invitation made again by the Lord Chancellor to respond in the time the Government set; that is, by the end of the consultation period at the end of January. The essential difference between our proposal and theirs is that ours will be a proposition that can be put before a Joint Committee, not a single-party prescription to which no change is acceptable.
We want to see a House with a composition that gives it the authority and confidence to use its powers. The White Paper utterly fails to do that. Indeed, its fundamental weakness is that it entrenches patronage

567
by replacing an 80 per cent appointed House with an 80 per cent appointed House in which even the elected are selected.
The Government treat election as though it were a danger to be restricted in numbers and controlled through party lists, which are simply appointment at one remove. The kind of choice they want could not be clearer—party choice, not people's choice. The same issue was before us in 1998 when my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish so memorably led resistance to closed lists for European elections. They were finally imposed by the Parliament Acts. Closed lists are a democratic monstrosity. It would be a deep affront if they were to be imposed on the House that led the fight against them.
Some may think it unfair to call the Government fearful of democracy. But you only have to look at their latest published views. Where do you find them? Secreted in the supporting documents smuggled out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a month after the White Paper was issued. On page 22 of the supporting documents, one reads:
"It is widely asserted that in the twenty-first century, the only basis for selecting a chamber of Parliament in a democratic society is a form of election. The Government does not accept that for a second chamber in the UK parliamentary system".
There you have it—from Keir Hardie and an Independent Labour Party fighting for democracy to new Labour and the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House rejecting it all in the course of one century. If elections and democracy in this case are such a bad thing, why have any at all? The House put forward by the Government is a miserable hybrid with the weakest and least independent form of democracy imaginable. They have sought out all the devices put in by my noble friend Lord Wakeham to buttress the independence of Peers and brutally struck them out.
I do not agree with all the findings of the Royal Commission. For instance, I am opposed to the removal of the power of this House to reject secondary legislation suggested by the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and eagerly snapped up by the Government. I am disappointed by the Government's total rejection of any method either House might seek to amend ministerial regulation. The idea is dismissed on page 18 of the supporting documents:
"The whole point of secondary legislation … is that it does not have to go through an elaborate Parliamentary procedure".
The candour of the noble and learned Lord in setting out the Government's modern democratic vision in these documents is disarming. With regulation mushrooming out of control I must signal to the Government that we shall strongly resist any reduction of this House's powers if they are included in any future Bill.
But if I disagreed with the commission of my noble friend Lord Wakeham on that issue, I agree with him on so many others. There are two which go to the very heart of the matter. First, as regards the appointed element, the Royal Commission wanted the Appointments Commission to appoint all nominated Members, including political ones. My noble friend
568
called the bluff of a Prime Minister whose spin doctors and, today, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—like to claim has "given up patronage". I always thought that a slightly ridiculous thing to say of a man who has appointed a third of this House in four years. Incidentally, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has reminded us, those Peers will remain in this House for the rest of their lives. Be that as it may, the Royal Commission put forward one idea to restrain party patronage and the Government rejected it. In this brave new world of democracy and representativeness, direct party patronage will still remain the main route to membership of this House.
A second important insight of the Royal Commission, shared with the report made in 1998 by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was that Peers, whether elected or appointed, should have long terms to ensure their independence of party Whips. The power to select and deselect is the power by which patronage dominates another place and, if the Government have their way, is set to dominate this House too. Up to now, life membership has given independence. Let me take one example almost at random. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, after 54 years of service, has been expelled from the Labour Party for objecting to Shaun Woodward. But, quite rightly, the noble Lord cannot be removed from this House. Nor can his distinctive voice be silenced by the threat of removal.
The Royal Commission sought to replicate that independence so far as possible, proposing that Peers in the new House should serve long terms, effectively 15 years, to entrench independence. The same long terms would ensure that their mandate would decay and so avoid what government claim to fear; that is, confrontation between two Houses with equal mandates. It was an ingenious proposal, like the commission's suggestion that Members of this House should not be re-elected or be allowed to move immediately to another place. But the Government rejected each one of those crucial proposals.
There is so much else wrong with the White Paper. Why, for example, are the only Peers to be made to retire compulsorily at 75 the Law Lords? Are the likes of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, Lord Brightman and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, too much for Ministers to bear? Would not the House lose much without the retired Law Lords? Why precisely is 16 the right number for the Lords spiritual, not 20, or 26? How will rebalancing after landslide elections fairly take place if the powers of patronage are removed from the Appointments Commission and given to party leaders? Who will qualify for the retirement bonuses promised to Peers who agree to go? I refer to a matter buried in the supporting documents. Will the noble and learned Lord identify the mysterious Peers he describes on page 73 who,
"have never regarded membership of the House as important to them, and who accepted a peerage because of the honour it conveyed rather than in expectation of taking an active part in the legislature"?

569
Will such Peers qualify for bonuses for retiring from a place they apparently never wanted to come to in the First place? What kind of use of public money is that?
Why do the Government believe that elected Peers should not be paid salaries at all? That is what they suggest. How can a person who has canvassed for election justify not being here full time? Where are the proposals to improve scrutiny of finance and European legislation or to bind the United Kingdom together?
What is the Government's precise view on legitimacy? Three years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, set out in her famous doctrine that reform would make the House more legitimate and authoritative. Five years ago the Government talked of a "more democratic" House. But now we have the Williams doctrine. On 18th December the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, in replying to a Starred Question, told the House that elected Peers would be no more legitimate than appointed ones. And he gave this reason for having elected Peers—that they might, as he put it,
"add a certain degree of variety".—[Official Report, 18/12/01; col. 130.]
to the House, as if variety had even been new Labour's prime criterion in approving parliamentary candidates. Was not variety the reason that, according to the White Paper, justified appointing Peers to this House? Or is that just one more piece of confusion in the Government's mind?
Is the Williams doctrine—that elected Peers are no more legitimate than appointed ones—really the settled view of the Government? If so, I suggest that they are speaking one constitutional language and the rest of the country another. That is the central dilemma that the Government do not begin to resolve. If they do not see elected Peers as more legitimate, what is the point of having them? And if they are no more legitimate, the House will have no more authority in the eyes of the country or of another place. How can the Government seriously propose a reformed House with elected Peers with reduced powers and no more authority? That is surely nonsense. One has to ask what is the point of going through the whole ghastly charade at all?
The White Paper fails practically every test. Key principles should govern any further reform. That reform should deliver a stronger, more authoritative House and restrain the growing power of the executive. It should be built on cross-party consensus and wide public debate and should take place alongside reform of Parliament as a whole. The White Paper should entrench the Parliament Acts to prevent this House's powers being reduced unilaterally. I refer especially to the power to extend the life of a Parliament. That is another key Wakeham recommendation that was rejected. In relation to all of those measures, the White Paper fails and fails again.
The House should not have its powers reduced, as the White Paper proposes. It should retain the power to reject secondary legislation; the White Paper
570
proposes removing it. It should have more power to consider and advise on financial matters; the White Paper has nothing to say on that matter whatever. The White Paper is nothing to do with authority, with legitimacy, with democracy or even with the core proposals of the Royal Commission's report. It is at best a camel and at worst an albatross. It is no basis for lasting or effective parliamentary reform.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will no doubt wish to tell the House in responding tomorrow evening when we may expect a Bill. I warn him that if that Bill is based on these plans, he should prepare for a very rough ride. The reform is not worthy of such a name and should be condemned to the ministerial dustbin.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I was interested by the noble Lord's criticisms of the White Paper and the fact that he agrees with parts of the Wakeham report. Will he tell the House what he wants to see by way of composition of your Lordships' House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that rather adequately when I said that we accepted the invitation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and laid out in the consultation paper; that is, that we should respond by the end of the month. My Lords, we shall do so.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I begin on a consensual note by saying that I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on two points. The first is that at the end of the day there will have to be a compromise. Perhaps I might be forgiven for saying that there are bad compromises and good compromises. Secondly, I very much agree with his comments on the lack of justification for the way in which the House of Lords, as an unreformed House, used to operate. No one can argue that the House of Lords of the last century was a model for any kind of democratic upper Chamber.
I also strongly agree with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; namely, that at the end of the day there will have to be some attempt at a meeting of minds between both Houses and all parties in the two Chambers.
We on these Benches perhaps see the problem in a slightly different way from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that in this country we are facing a considerable crisis of confidence in the parliamentary system. We are deeply troubled by growing evidence of a lack of interest among the public and a sense that the parliamentary system is no longer very relevant to their lives. However painful it may be, we need to address the findings of, for example, the BBC study that showed that among the civic institutions of the United Kingdom, Parliament rated third from the bottom, with only 32 per cent of the public expressing confidence in it.

571
Even more disturbing in some ways is the lack of confidence among Members of Parliament in their own Chamber. That was expressed in their responses to the Hansard Society study that asked them what they thought were the effective instruments the legislature had vis-à-vis the executive. The reply—this involved a majority of Members of Parliament and their belief about being effective in controlling, supervising and scrutinising the executive—was that there was not a single such instrument, with one exception: Select Committee hearings. That finding came shortly before the crisis that blew up over who appointed members of Select Committees and the way in which chairmen were chosen. Incidentally, the House of Commons, thank goodness, won that battle itself. That was the first example for quite a long time of it standing up for itself.
I do not make a party point. There have been different governments in this country, which have been powerful and which have come from different parties. Consistently, however, the story has been the same: that we in the United Kingdom have one of the most powerful executives of any democracy in the world and that that executive is less effectively scrutinised and checked than virtually any other legislature in the democratic world. That is at the centre of the point from which reform should start.
We on these Benches are concerned about the consistent attempt to reform the House of Lords not as part of Parliament but on its own. We must recognise that reform of Parliament as a whole is needed if we are not to short-change our citizens.
It will not do for the Government to argue continually that the battle between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is about the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. I know no sensible person who would ever argue that the House of Commons was not pre-eminent within our Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is the distinguished chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and one of the most respected Members of this House. In his speech to the Constitutional Unit a few weeks ago, he said that the House of Lords was—I use his phrase—"necessarily subordinate". All of us accept that.
A great many, but not all, upper Houses in other countries are effective. I refer to the Indian, French, German, Scandinavian and Dutch upper Houses. They do not challenge the lower House—they live with it. They complement it and attempt to support it. That should be the case in this country as well.
We who seek to reform the House of Lords most want greater strength in the House of Commons, not less. We should complement what it does, and help and support it in scrutinising legislation in the most effective way. We on these Benches specifically want greater strength for Select Committees in the other place and more free votes for Members of the other place. We want those in another place to choose their own members of Select Committees, and not be under the influence of the Whips. Does that challenge the
572
pre-eminence of the Commons? No, my Lords, it does not. It suggests that the Commons should be stronger and that there is no battle between us in the attempt to scrutinise adequately legislation that is presented to us.
The approach to reform should be holistic, not split into little pieces. I strongly endorse the plea of the Leader of the Opposition that there should be at least some meeting of minds between the leaders of parties in both Houses in order finally to try to get straight what the relationship should be. We should make our Parliament, with its long and marvellous traditions, as effective in the future as it was in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Since then, the executive has increasingly grown in strength. The late lamented Lord Hailsham said that we in Britain had an elected dictatorship—those are his words, not mine. I fear that for many of us that frightening phrase echoes with growing validity as we perceive what has happened to our Parliament.
What, then, is the role of the House of Lords? It is to be an effective, scrutinising body. That matters all the more as those of us in this House who were involved, for example, in the counter-terrorism Bill know very well. Quite straightforwardly, the House of Commons is no longer able totally to discharge its duty of scrutiny. That is not because it does not want to do so but because the growing demands of constituency work combined with the very proper growing demand of Select Committees, many of them excellent, make it difficult for Members in another place to discharge that duty fully. As many of us know, the counter-terrorism Bill was debated for only two days in the House of Commons. An issue as major as that of detention without trial was discussed for just two-and-a-half hours in that place. Had there not been eight hours of scrutiny in this House, I believe that the ultimate Act would have been much more troubling that it turned out to be.
This House repeatedly proposes amendments to legislation and many of them are in the name of the Government. But all of us in this House who have been engaged in major Bills know that many of those amendments are inspired by sensible and intelligent criticism of legislation and by proposals for improving the drafting. But, more than that, they are often inspired by suggestions to the Government that quite simply what they propose is wrong. Why is it that time and again in this House we see coming back from the House of Commons Bills which merely reiterate what they stated two or three years previously? That applies to Bill after Bill on education, police powers, prisons, criminal justice and health. They reiterate what was debated previously because, in the end, the Bills were not considered adequately before being passed into law.
Therefore, in order to be an effective, scrutinising Chamber we believe that we need to introduce much more pre-legislative scrutiny of major Bills. No major Bill should go ahead without pre-legislative scrutiny, enabling our fellow citizens to make their contribution. In this day and age it is riot so radical to suggest that the introduction of information technology to our children means that they, too, as

573
young citizens, could be encouraged to suggest their own ideas about Bills and even to propose their own suggestions for amendments. That is what happens now in the United States and there is no reason why it should not happen here.
Secondly, with regard to scrutiny, it is crucial that the Lords maintain their powers over secondary legislation, of which there is more and more with less and less being scrutinised. Here, I agree strongly with the Leader of the Opposition that we cannot accept the proposal for delaying legislation as an alternative to the proposal to retain the ultimate veto. Incidentally, that veto is used very rarely because, as we know, if the parties in the Commons agree, our delay can be swept away within a matter of days. Far from that, it seems to me that we require a new Select Committee on statutory instruments. Such a committee would be able to consider the substance and not only the vires of those instruments and to recommend to the House those that should be more fully debated. Dare I say that perhaps those that are entitled to be more fully debated might conceivably be amendable as well?
With regard to the powers of the House, of course we on these Benches do not believe that there should be a major increase in our powers but neither do we believe that there should be a diminution in them. In that context, we should like to see the House of Lords take on some responsibility for the large areas of legislation and government policy that are simply not scrutinised by anyone. I refer here not only to a matter for which we have pressed for a long time—a joint committee on treaties—but also to the whole issue of international agencies and government agencies, which go virtually unscrutinised by anyone.
When we look at young people clenching their fists in the protests against the World Trade Organisation, we might spend a moment considering the fact that at present there is no legitimate parliamentary way in which they can make their feelings known. The WTO and treaties do not come before any House of Parliament to be debated or considered or for their reports to be deliberated upon.
I want to raise two other issues. The first is crucial: it is composition. We agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. It is very difficult to suggest that some other body should make political appointments. In that sense, we understand why the Government decided to disregard that element of the Wakeham commission report. But let us be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues. They were trying to grapple with the issue of patronage and political appointment. If we do not like the way that they did it, we need to come up with something more convincing, and on these Benches we are clear about what that is.
The House of Lords should be substantially elected and there should he only a proportion of independent people to maintain the rich tradition of expertise in this House. But, in the end, there is no escaping what almost every other elected upper House in the democratic world has long since embraced—the concept of elected Members to this House. We believe
574
that they should be elected in a much larger proportion than 120; we believe that such elections should take place over a period of time; we believe that they should be associated with the timetable of the European parliamentary elections; and we believe that they should be linked to the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. One day, when we see more effective regional government, that role will be even more important than it is today. But even today, given devolution, it is important that Scotland and Wales are clearly seen to be associated with some Members of this House.
Finally, I turn to the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor concerning the size of the House. Let us confront that directly. The proposal to remove the Weatherill Peers—perhaps I may say on behalf of these Benches that we greatly respect much of the work done by them—would take from this House some 92 Members. In addition, over a five-year period some 90 Members will be carried away by retirement or by the inevitability for all of us of moving to another world. That means that over a period of five years approximately 180 people will leave this House. We on these Benches believe that if one offers adequate retirement assistance for those who wish to retire voluntarily from this House because it has become difficult for them to maintain their work here, combined with a tranche of elected Members who come in over a 10 or 15-year period, the problems raised by the noble and learned Lord will simply disappear. We shall show him the reasons for saying that.
Before I sit down I simply want to say that we on these Benches have a clear and positive alternative route for this House. We believe it to be democratic and legitimate. Frankly, given the crisis of confidence in our parliamentary system, we believe that the time has come to address that crisis and to address it radically, thoughtfully and with truly imaginative proposals. The White Paper falls very far short of that.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I start by making clear that my very elevated position on the speakers' list does not mean that I speak today for the Cross-Bench group. What I say reflects my own personal and very independent view.
My starting point is to agree with the Government that it would be quite wrong to attempt to clone another place. I accept that the Commons must be the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. Further, I fully support the concept that a significant proportion of the membership of your Lordships' House must be non-party political; that is, independent Members. I was pleased to note that the Government acknowledge that the independent element of the existing House of Lords is one,
"to which people attach the highest importance".
Consequently, I agree also with the Government that a reformed House of Lords should not be—indeed could not be—fully elected if these criteria are to be met.

575
However, whether considering the appointed or elected elements of the reformed House, it is important to ensure that the new arrangements prove attractive to individuals of quality and experience inside and outside the political arena. The White Paper and its supporting documents make a number of references to government concerns that no one of any substance will be prepared to stand and that this or that aspect of the options could discourage excellent candidates.
Not enough consideration has been given to what will make the reformed House, on the lines proposed in the White Paper, attractive to individuals with the expertise, the skills and the parliamentary commitment required. An entitlement to put ML after one's name does not strike me as sufficient.
The arguments advanced to de-link the peerage from membership of a second Chamber, still to be called the House of Lords, may have some weight. But that also leaves room for considerable confusion. I welcome the Government's intention to retain the title House of Lords. I recall encouraging them to make that decision during the debates in 1999.
I am concerned about the incentives and attractions for individuals to stand for election or appointment to this Chamber, particularly for those who sit on these Benches. These candidates will want to consider their expected period of service and their opportunities for re-election or re-appointment, as well as status and remuneration. The Government's proposal that,
"re-election and re-appointment should both be permitted",
does not make clear whether that would be just once or more than that. I hope that the Government will give these aspects, which are so important in attracting the right quality of candidate, further thought before they finalise their proposals.
I turn now to the new statutory appointments commission. First, it is self-evident that the chairman and members of that commission should be familiar with the workings of the House. They must know how Members spend their days and time here, whether on the floor of the Chamber, in Select Committees or on other parliamentary activities. These commissioners will, after all, he responsible for identifying and selecting individuals to sit on these Benches as well as for a number of other issues of importance relating to membership of the House; for example, the Royal Commission excluded MPs as members. For those reasons I agree with that.
The proposals in the White Paper and supporting documents do not provide enough of a guarantee of the quality and experience required to sit on the statutory appointments commission. I expect those criteria to be set out in the Bill. The comparison with members of the Electoral Commission is not apposite. Their functions are not in any way similar, although there is a reference to the Electoral Commission as well as the appointments commission having responsibility for propriety, which may need further clarification.
576
The Royal Commission proposed that one of the eight members of the appointments commission should be nominated by the Convenor of the Cross Benches—not, incidentally as represented in the White Paper as,
"by … the cross-bench peers".
Moreover, the Government's proposal makes no reference to the Convenor being consulted, along with the party leaders, about the members of the appointments commission who would be appointed in response to an Address to the Queen. Bearing in mind the role of the appointments commission in selecting Members to sit on these Benches, I believe that there is a role for the Convenor, as envisaged by the Royal Commission.
Secondly, a number of references are made to "each round of appointments", but it is not clear whether the frequency will be left to the appointments commission or decreed by statute. A prolonged gap between rounds could lead to a reduced independent number. Twenty per cent will not adequately represent the value perceived for the contribution of independent Members to the work of the House.
The White Paper is also unclear about how those who choose to surrender a party Whip, or who would be classified, as happens today, as "Other", are to he counted. It has been suggested that that will be for the appointments commission to decide. But how should it do that? It is not acceptable that from the clay a Peer surrenders a party Whip, or for those who are not independents —for example, Others or minor party members—that they should be included in the independents figure of 20 per cent. Those who surrender a Whip should still be counted within the percentage of their party for a period of time and not immediately added to the independent quota.
No mention is made of the future of the two hereditary office holders. It should be made clear what the Government proposes for these offices. Do they intend to make any changes to State Openings and other events involving the Crown where the present holders have responsibilities?
It is also unclear whether the Prime Minister's intent to,
"retain the discretionary right to make a small number of appointments—4/5—in each Parliament of people intended to work as Ministers in the Lords",
is additional to the Government's share of the membership of the House. Will those appointed remain MLs for the period of that Parliament or only for the time that they hold office?
For retiring archbishops or holders of senior public appointments, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the Cabinet Secretary or the heads of the Diplomatic Service and the Armed Forces, there appears to be no straightforward route to these Benches as in the past. Will they have to apply for membership and be considered by the appointments commission? I hope not for such individuals. The Prime Minister recognised this difficulty tinder the current interim Appointments Commission arrangement. He revoked his decision not to

577
recommend peerages himself and proposed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, for a peerage to Her Majesty. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will also consider how best to provide a path to this House for such individuals, who can bring invaluable experience and knowledge to these Benches and to the House.
I am also concerned about the abrupt loss of experience and expertise that we enjoy in the hereditary element on these Benches, if they are to be culled en bloc. The Convenor, who currently gets minimal financial assistance to provide him with support in a range of activities of importance to the Cross-Bench group—in dealing with accommodation needs or with the audit and other revenue requirements affecting the handling of the Cross-Bench's Cranborne money—is greatly indebted to the support that he receives from hereditary Cross-Bench Peers.
But Cross-Bench hereditaries, unlike their counterparts in the parties, who want to return as appointed MLs, will have to seek appointment through the appointments commission. It is already clear from experience following stage 1 that excluded hereditaries have returned to the House by the party route, but no former Cross-Bench hereditary has been able to do so other than by filling a vacancy due to death. It seems unfortunate that the detailed knowledge and experience of the House, which the remaining hereditaries have, should be lost overnight. I hope that the Government will agree that it is still within the spirit, if not the wording, of their manifesto commitment to allow the remaining hereditaries to continue as MLs, without further selection or appointment, for life or at least for the ten-year adjustment period. That would greatly ease the transitional arrangements and sustain the expertise of the workings of this House; for example in the role of Deputy Speakers.
I question—although I am not sure that there is a ready answer—why ethnic and faith representation should be in proportion to the population, while the threshold for minor parties is deemed to be 5 per cent of the votes cast, not 5 per cent of the whole electorate. There seems to be an inconsistent approach to those two important issues, especially as the parties will be subject to the requirements in relation to gender and ethnic origin.
The Government say that they are keen to seek consensus on further reform. I welcome that. I hope that they will hold themselves to that undertaking and will give adequate time to address and work through the many aspects of the change. I have addressed only a few of the issues relating to independents. They are important, but they are of course only one aspect of the whole. We seem no nearer a consensus on the issues concerning the elected element—their number, electorate, terms of office and so on—than when the idea of reform was first mooted. The Royal Commission itself was unable to agree a single solution. The White Paper seeks views and lacks a clear definition of the Government's position.
578
That is bound to prove the most difficult and contentious issue before both Houses of Parliament, yet until it is resolved many of the other issues, including those affecting the independent element, cannot be fully addressed in context, let alone settled. I urge the Government to allow further debate and discussion to concentrate on the complex issue of the elected element. The White Paper is not a good basis on which to discuss further reform of your Lordships' House.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, the footnote to the Speakers' List reminds us that the Companion recommends that speeches be limited to 15 minutes. One does not need to be a Nobel prize winner in mathematics to calculate that with 42 speakers, we will rise somewhat after half-past one in the morning if we all take our 15 minutes. Tomorrow, with 40 speakers but starting later, the same will be the case. I therefore hope that I shall find favour with the House if I unashamedly curry that favour by keeping my remarks to roughly half that time or even less.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Perhaps I should sit down now.
One thing is already clear—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor alluded to it. It is hardly prophetic to say that it will be difficult to reach a consensus. I hope that efforts will be made to reach a cross-party consensus because, frankly, unless we get one, a reform will not get through this House. The numbers just will not work. However, I hope that the whole House will now recognise the Government's wisdom in proceeding with stage one reform of the House—on which we could achieve consensus—when we did, rather than waiting for a total package, as we were urged at the time by some noble Lords, which would manifestly have produced substantial delay.
There is a bit of a hang-up on the composition of the House of Lords and not nearly enough attention paid to procedural reform of how it works, of how the House of Commons works—I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said—and of how the two Houses work together. As a relative newcomer, it seems to me silly for a Bill to go through all its stages in one House and then all its stages in the other House. We could well have debates on its substance on Second Reading in both Houses and then adopt a Committee structure involving both Houses.
We could experiment with many things to improve the way in which the House of Lords works. I want to concentrate on one small issue, on which I take issue with the noble Baroness and others. Election is not the answer. If there is widespread disillusion with the House of Commons, I must say that it is partly caused by media coverage of it—we exaggerate the difficulties. However, let us say that there is disillusion

579
with a wholly elected House. I do not see how we dispel that disillusion by applying the elective principle to this House.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have not gone fascist in my old age. I recognise that a democratic mandate is essential for the exercise of ultimate power, but not for the scrutiny of legislation or participation in debates in a second Chamber which by convention—and, to some extent, by statute—has ceded the exercise of real power to the House of Commons.
A House of Lords with a significant elected element will inevitably—perhaps justifiably—seek more powers as it shares democratic legitimacy with the House of Commons. It is all very well saying that we do not want that at present; the reason for that is that we are not elected and we recognise the supremacy of an elected Chamber. If we were elected, why should we go along with all the conventions that grew up during the 20th century by which we regard the House of Commons as supreme? In what way would it be supreme?
If I may appeal directly to noble Lords and Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches, if this Chamber were to be elected by a better electoral system—in their eyes—would that not confer on it greater democratic legitimacy than a first-past-the-post House of Commons? If this House were elected at a different stage in the electoral cycle, could it not be regarded as a more up-to-date expression of the electorate's will? Could it not therefore be entitled to say to the House of Commons, "Sorry, that may have been true two years' ago; you had a mandate then. But we have a mandate now and ours is more recent"? There is a real danger of stalemate.
At present, this House does an extremely good job of focusing attention on matters on which the Government are then almost compelled by pressure of public opinion, rather than by statute, to rethink. That works—it worked recently, just before the recess, on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It will not work nearly as well if we have an elected Chamber. Let us be clear: one reason why we are better at scrutiny than is the House of Commons is that we do not have the constituency workload of Members of the House of Commons.
We should also acknowledge that democracy—which, let me repeat, I believe to be essential for the exercise of ultimate power—brings other weaknesses in its wake. It induces short-term thinking. It is perhaps only natural that some Members of Parliament, if not all, have an eye to ensuring that they are re-elected at the next election. Are we really so arrogant—which would be deeply uncharacteristic of this House—as to say that the people who are elected to this House will somehow be made of sterner stuff and want to do unpopular things immediately before a general election? I think that unlikely. It is true of successive governments, although the present Government are making efforts in this regard, that one reason that we have long-term infrastructure problems in this country is that few political parties are willing to spend taxpayers' money on a benefit that will not be
580
apparent for 10 or 15 years when they recognise that, given the swings and roundabouts, they may well he out of office.
That is a drawback of democracy, which is still, as someone once said, the least bad system that we have. We do not need an elected element for scrutiny of legislation. The solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, of Peers who would be elected for one long term of 15 years and not allowed to stand for re-election, is ingenious. But let us be honest, the element of accountability is lost. It is precisely because they will not be re-elected that they can behave independently. Let us grasp the nettle and recognise that if they were not elected in the first place they might be even more independent.
Even if that argument is not accepted, there is a further problem, and this is where I disagreed with the major reform involving the hereditary Peers. The hereditary principle was not the reason why hereditary Peers could behave with a degree of independence of thought; it was the lack of election. That is as true of life Peers as it is of hereditaries. If we lose that, we will run into severe danger.
Even with the ingenious suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, we face another problem, one that was alluded to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. Are we to pay the elected Members? If we pay them, we must, if we are to be honest about it, pay everyone. We cannot have two classes of citizen. I look at the sterling committee work done by hereditary Peers. In that connection, I must respectfully disagree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. His arithmetic suggested that we could not have more than 120. Things might be worse than he thinks. It would be unthinkable that a government, of whatever political complexion, would not wish to baptise, as it were, the 92 departing hereditaries—or, at least, a good many of them—and make them life Peers, in view of the continued contribution that they would make to the public life of the country. If we pay everybody, the public will assume that the House is doing more than it did before. That runs against the fundamental principle that we should try to preserve the supremacy of the House of Commons.
There is another danger. If some Members are to be elected, especially if they are allowed to seek re-election—I concede the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, did not recommend allowing re-election, but the Government are, at least, canvassing the possibility of short terms, with re-election—we must make sure that the constituency basis of that election does not remove the pre-eminence of MPs in the service of their constituencies. We might make it sectoral, creating, for example, an old-age sector for over-55s or over-60s. If I am elected to represent old people in Scotland, will old age pensioners in various constituencies come to me or to their MP? We must be careful about that.
We must also be careful about the geographical basis of any election. As the Lord Chancellor invited us to be constructive, I shall endeavour to do so, by

581
suggesting a way round the salary problem. If we leave the House unsalaried—although with generous allowances—but allow those who are nominated by a subordinate body or a national parliament to recompense indirectly those who are elected, that might solve the problem. Otherwise, we face a major problem.
Having promised to take half my time, but having taken two thirds, I must sit down, but I urge the House to consider the damage that might be done if we have any elected Members. Certainly, the figure of 120 is on the high side.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it has been my misfortune not to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, speak before. He made a helpful contribution to the debate. However, I would like to comment on the matter of Members representing the regions and nations in this House. We thought about having a series of appointments boards—I, certainly, thought about it—and we concluded that the electorate was probably the best way to get them appointed. Such Members will have some of the characteristics of appointed Members, but they must also be appointed or elected by the regions and the nations. The noble Lord was kind enough to call that an ingenious solution, but we arrived at it by means of a tortuous process.
The first thing that I want to do is to congratulate the Government on embarking on the exercise in the first place. I intended to say that it was a difficult exercise and that we had ducked it when we were in government. However, with my noble friend Lady Thatcher sitting beside me, I would like to rephrase that and say that we had different priorities.
Lord Whitelaw, when he was Leader of your Lordships' House, and I, when I was Chief Whip in another place, discussed the issue on more than one occasion. We considered that it would be too divisive a matter to get a consensus at that time. Unfortunately, we may still be proved right. The Royal Commission, which I had the honour to chair, managed to get a consensus during our deliberations, and the Government have departed from that consensus in several important respects. Frankly, I am fearful as to the consequences.
In his foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister said that the report of the Royal Commission offered an excellent way forward. I cannot yet return the compliment. There are several aspects of the White Paper that differ significantly from our recommendations and give me cause for concern. As they stand, I find them difficult to support.
Of course, I welcome the Government's decision to press ahead with the second stage of reforming your Lordship's House. The current "interim" arrangements, introduced in 1999, are unsatisfactory and inadequate as a long-term response to the challenge of Lords reform. It is vital to the health of our parliamentary democracy that we move rapidly to
582
establish a second Chamber with the authority and confidence to play a full part, working alongside the other place in holding the Government to account.
I also welcome the Government's support for the great majority of our recommendations, especially those relating to the role and functions of a reformed second Chamber. The Government are right to endorse our conclusion that the reformed second Chamber should not be wholly or largely elected. Such a chamber would inevitably compromise the role of the other place as the United Kingdom's decisive political forum. It would produce a second Chamber that was a clone of the other place, full of professional politicians and dominated by the political parties. It was interesting to find, as we went around the country taking evidence, that nobody—but nobody—thought that that would be a desirable outcome. Such a chamber would be either a compliant rubber stamp for government legislation or a source of legislative gridlock.
A reformed second Chamber needs a different source of political authority from that of the other place. The Royal Commission argued that that authority could be derived from the state of being broadly representative of British society, relatively independent of partisan politics and expert and experienced in a range of walks of life. So, I welcome the Government's support for the conclusion that most of the Members of a reformed second Chamber should, as now, be appointed.
I am concerned, however, by the Government's proposal that most of the appointed Members should be chosen by the political parties. A continuation of direct political patronage—whosever cronies they are—is unlikely to give the reformed second Chamber the necessary political authority to play an effective role. The Royal Commission recommended that all appointed Members should be chosen by an independent statutory appointments commission. On a related point, I must say that the method of appointing the appointments commission is also important. The commission should not be the creation of the Government, as the present one is, but should be set up by an all-party agreement. To that extent, the present members of the Government's Advisory Committee on Appointments ought not to be members of a truly independent appointments commission. They are excellent people, and many of them are good friends of mine, but there should be a fresh start. I know that the Government intend to have a statutory appointments commission in the proposals.
We recommended that the appointments commission should be required to maintain the proportion of around 20 per cent of the total and work towards a situation in which the distribution of politically affiliated Members matched the pattern of the votes cast for political parties at the most recent general election. That way, there would never again be a realistic chance of having a second Chamber that was dominated by a single political party. The Government would normally have the allegiance of

583
the largest group of Members, but no overall control. Other parties would be represented in proportion to their electoral strength.
The Government support the application of that formula but also want the political parties to determine who should represent them. That creates two problems. That would preclude the appointments of politicians who might make an excellent contribution to the work of this House but who happen to be out of favour with their party leadership—and we can all think of examples. It would also inhibit the appointments commission in proactively seeking out good quality candidates from different walks of life if it were prevented from appointing people who happen to have political affiliations. There are many good and suitable people who would not get on to a political list, but who have expertise and experience in other areas, but are members of one party or another and cannot be considered Cross-Benchers.
In practice, I believe that the Government are being unnecessarily defensive. The political parties will be able to determine which members of the second Chamber receive their Whip and in practice they will be able to insist on having the right number of members able to respond to their whip. The appointments commission could be expected to give very serious consideration to nominations from the political parties. And it just may be that it would be rather smart of the Government to distance themselves a little from the appointments process. I can think of many occasions when I was Chief Whip when I would have found that quite useful.
I also have major concerns about the Government's provisional views on the arrangements for electing "regional" members. If "regional" members have only a short tenure and remain dependent on their party for renomination, they are less likely to apply independent judgment in their contribution to the House. If they perceive membership of the second Chamber as a stepping stone to a wider political career in another place, they would be inclined to behave in a partisan fashion that would alter very substantially the nature of the second Chamber. More fundamentally, if Members of the other place came to see "regional" members of this Chamber as rivals for their political influence, they will either oppose or, if they do not oppose, they will later regret the whole concept of this second stage reform. A very distinguished veteran of the 1968 reform of the House of Lords told me, "You can only go as far as the other place is prepared to let you go". The issue goes far wider than merely ensuring the supremacy of one Chamber over the other. The Government ignore that advice at their peril.
The relatively high proportion of elected members and the rapid turnover inherent in the Government's current proposals would also make it much more difficult to achieve and maintain the right political balance. One argument I have heard advanced—and it has been mentioned today—is that the relatively short terms proposed by the Government would enhance the accountability of the "regional" members in the second Chamber. But that is precisely the point on
584
which I would challenge the proposals: direct accountability to the electorate should be the preserve of the other place. Extending it to your Lordships' House would risk undermining the proposition that under our present constitutional settlement the other place should have the greater political authority.
My third reservation is that the White Paper does not mention the Royal Commission's recommendation that the Parliament Acts should be entrenched against further unilateral amendment by another place. This is a vital constitutional safeguard. It would protect the current balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament, which was not seriously challenged in arty evidence to the Royal Commission and which the Government say they support. It would also entrench the second Chamber's current veto over the other place legislating itself into permanent existence, or at least extending its life.
The Government say—and I am pleased about it—that they are seeking a consensus and have identified a number of points for consultation. I welcome that and trust that the Government are sufficiently open-minded to alter their position. After all, the Royal Commission reflected a broad spread of political opinion and consulted widely. We were very widely divided when we started, but we had to work very hard to achieve a consensus. The Government have moved away from that consensus. I believe that they will have to move back towards our recommendations if they are to succeed in their attempts to modernise your Lordships' House.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the report and subsequent debates in this House made clear the commission's skill and the Government's commitment to a reformed and modernised upper Chamber. These Benches have on previous occasions paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the work of his commission. We support the broad aims of the commission's report, including those which affect the role of the Lords Spiritual. We do so wholeheartedly. None of us is here today—and not least those of us on these Benches—to defend privilege or position.
The consensus achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, offered us an opportunity and it would be a failure of political responsibility if we did not achieve the reform of this House. That may involve some tough discussion in the coming months, but failure to use the opportunity would not only undermine the credibility of our future work but would undermine the credibility of our parliamentary process as a whole.
The details of what proportion of the House should be elected, who should be appointed and the means thereby are important and will be at the heart of the debate. However, I want to offer a reflection on the principle of why noble Lords want to avail themselves of counsel from these Benches and, from that reflection on the principles, offer a few comments. My fundamental theme will be that politics is too important to leave to the politicians and religion is too important to leave to the bishops.

585
The Government have, in my view, wisely chosen to follow the commission's proposals on two fundamental principles. They accept that constitutional reform should be evolutionary and they look to build on the experience of the past, recognising the vital role that this House has played in the process of parliamentary life. There seems to be a third principle in the Government's proposals. That is that this House needs to be different from the other place and therefore complementary to it. It should not be a rival or, worse, a pale reflection of the other place. It should be a House distinctive in its composition and style of working which adds to the task which Parliament exists to do for the people.
The danger in thinking that the only way in which we can be democratic and representative is through election is that it threatens to make this place increasingly like the other place. Since the first steps in reform were taken, some have commented in recent months that there are already signs of that happening in the way in which this House works. If we choose a large or even predominantly elected membership, not only do I doubt whether large numbers of people will be queuing at the polls to elect members—and what will be the credibility of people who have been elected by less than 20 per cent of the electorate, as happens in some local elections in our country?—but we may well be in danger of losing a distinctiveness which we should not give up too lightly.
I am glad to see that the Government accept that there is real merit in involving people with particular skills and experience, whose working and professional life is out there in the community, in the life and work of this House. I believe that we should resist the idea that this House should follow where the other has gone and have a virtually exclusively full-time and professional and, therefore, predominantly political membership. If this place remains the second House complementing the elected House, there is real merit in drawing on the experience of people who bring engagement with the common life of our country in all its diversity. Election by no means exhausts the meaning of representative democracy. We have the opportunity in this House to draw on the many faces of our contemporary life.
A few months ago I gathered with assembled members of the judiciary, high commissioners from a number of countries and many others at the site of Runnymede, which is in my diocese. In the language of our day, Magna Carta was an attempt to bring stakeholders together. It is no coincidence that the meeting on that plain was brokered by a bishop. Since that date the Church has, thank God, assumed a more fitting role as servant rather than superpower. Nevertheless it retains a pivotal role in the common as well as the constitutional life of our nation.
When I come to the House, which I seek to do on a regular basis, I bring with me my life and ministry as a bishop: a public ministry to one million people across 500 square miles of Surrey and North-East Hampshire. My daily work, and that of a thousand clergy and lay people is tending to the ties that bind our
586
society together: its towns, neighbourhoods, schools, families and a host of other global and local connections. Our ministry, which is a public trust, is open to all. That is the foundation of the historic role that the bishops have played in this House.
Like other Peers who seek to bring their experience to this place because of the character of our contributions to our national life elsewhere, I cannot be here each day. Your Lordships need me to be involved in my life in the wider church and community if my contribution here is to be of value. That is why we are not convinced that these proposals are right, either in terms of the size or the nature of what the Bishops as Lords Spiritual or those who would enrich us with the life of the other churches and faith communities can bring to the House. The Government are seeking to do a very Anglican thing: choosing the middle way between having what some see as an embarrassment of bishops and those who want to see Parliament cleansed of all spiritual representation and contribution. They have alighted on the figure of 16, which is down from 26, so it appears a reasonable half-way house. It may be reasonable but it is not workable if these Benches are to provide the constancy and continuity that are the prerequisites of attaining the benefits of our presence.
The figure in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was arrived at in connection with the arrival of members of other churches. I am sorry that the Government have given up on a structured ecumenical presence in this House that would have had the full support of the bishops and, even with all the difficulties, would be achievable. One can focus the argument on the difficulty of justifying too large a number of spiritual leaders, or one can hold the view that the House needs people on these Benches who cannot be here all the time. Paradoxically, it is our not being here that has the potential to enrich the life of the House, because when we are here we bring the spiritual ministry entrusted to us in our local communities.
Imaginative and sensible conversation might help us to find agreement. To erect barriers to faith being interrogated and called to account would be the worst possible news for a dynamic 21st century legislative Chamber whose role is to scrutinise and, when necessary, say no to those caught up in short-term or popular solutions that need long-term or sometimes unpopular demands to be made on them.
At a time when there is growing spiritual concern in people's lives, and when complex issues of religious faith and vision are affecting even our international order, we need more than ever to bring all the voices of our shared life together. Religious life and faith play a powerful role for good or ill in people's lives and communities. The creative and the destructive possibilities of faith are plainer now than ever for all to see. We need only to contrast the chaos of Afghanistan or the Balkans with the post-Soviet renewal in Poland, the truth and reconciliation work in South Africa, or the rapidly decreasing HIV infection rates in Uganda. The faith of ordinary people is often the transforming lump of leaven in the bread of life that feeds families and nations.

587
We should encourage reform in this House. We should hold on to our conviction about what can be achieved in a House which is distinctive in its form and composition, and which can draw the many voices of our common life together for the good and welfare of our people. That, together with the excellence of our legislative work, is a trust that we need to fulfil. Along with many others, I would encourage seeking a route by consensus and structured conversation if we are to seize the moment that the work of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has offered.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I regard it as a great privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, not only because I happen to have been Recorder of Guildford for some years and enjoyed attending the most modern and magnificent cathedral over which he presides spiritually, but because I agree so much with him that we should not interfere with the representation of the episcopacy in this House. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fact that the Bishops represent only England, which is merely a part of the United Kingdom. I believe that we should have more representation from the spiritual leaders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In considering the future composition and powers of your Lordships' House, we should realise that within our constitution such composition and powers must dovetail with those of the other place. During my 56 years in Parliament, 34 of which were spent in the House of Commons, I have seen the powers of the other place remain about the same but its composition has declined, whereas your Lordships' powers have also remained about the same but the composition has improved enormously and widely. Your Lordships' House is not only representative of all the professions, but includes field marshals, an air marshal and an admiral of the fleet. It is now a magnificently well-informed and responsible body. But we should remember the need to dovetail with the composition and powers of another place.
I am sorry to say that general elections do not always represent the views of the majority of the voters. No government since the end of the second world war has received a majority of the votes polled. More voters have supported the opposition and independent members in another place than have supported any government. I have the statistics and I ask your Lordships to bear with me, as I shall be selective. The highest turnout of voters was 84 per cent in 1950 when a Labour government were elected. The lowest was at the last general election when only 59.4 per cent of the electorate voted. But what about the proportion of votes for the winning party? Again, the highest proportion was obtained in 1950 for the Labour government with 39.9 per cent of the electorate only—yet that was the highest. The lowest figure in that respect was at the last general election when only 24.2 per cent of the electorate voted for the present Government.
588
I shall give your Lordships just one more statistic because it is relevant. In 1955, the winning party's share of the votes polled was the highest at 49.6 per cent. That shows that never more than half of the electorate who voted has supported the government of the day. I realise that that is partly due to the three-party system. In days long ago when we just had the Conservatives and the Liberals the matter was more simple and, you could say, more democratic. The lowest proportion of the electorate voting for the government of the day in all these years—nearly 60 years—was recorded last year when only 40.7 per cent voted Labour. Surely that is one of the reasons why your Lordships should have—and should not hesitate to use—the power to ask the other place to think again.
The other factor to be considered is this: the nature of Members of Parliament has changed. In my first 30 years in another place we had a wonderful collection of people who were representative of responsibilities of all kinds. Until 1997 there were a large number of men and women MPs who were accustomed to responsibility in all the professions: in business, in farming, in the Armed Forces, in the public services, and in the academic world; indeed, one could go on because in various other ways they were also representative.
However, since 1997 there has been a large number of young Members in the House of Commons who have had little or no experience of responsibility. After the last election, it was significant that the Prime Minister could not find in the other place a Queen's Counsel who was fit to be appointed Attorney-General. So, I am glad to say, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was appointed from this House. As for the position of Solicitor-General, a lady Member of Parliament was chosen. In actual fact, I was at school with her uncles. For the first time on record, I believe, a solicitor was appointed Solicitor-General. But, alas, she was a solicitor who had scarcely ever practised as such.
But in your Lordships' House we have a vast array of talented experience of all kinds. I hope that no Member on the Labour Benches will be embarrassed by this, but I dare to add that the Government Front Bench in this House is much more talented than that in another place—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: My Lords, with all those fundamental thoughts in mind, I turn, now, to the Government's White Paper. I shall deal with it briefly because so much has already been said and there is very little that it would be either necessary or desirable for me to add.
On page seven of the document under the heading, "The Main Government Proposals", the fifth proposal states that political membership of this House,
"should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous General Election".
I disagree most fundamentally with that proposal. If that were to be the starter of making this House democratically elected, it would begin to turn us into a

589
microcosm of the House of Commons. We would lose our reputation and our power. I believe that that would be a very bad step to take. The Government claim that this proposal came from the Royal Commission, but I was not conscious that it went as far as that.
Under paragraph 12 at the bottom of page seven reference is made to:
"Areas where the Government would welcome views"—
that is, the views of noble Lords in this debate. Perhaps I may briefly refer to them. The first area is the,
"overall balance between elected, nominated and ex officio members, and the balance between political and independent members";
and the second proposition asks:
"Whether elections to the Lords should be linked to General Elections, those for the European Parliament, or over time linked to those from devolved and regional bodies within the UK".
In his vivid and clear speech, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde entirely demolished that thought. I hope that most Members of your Lordships' House will realise that that, too, would turn us into a mere microcosm.
The third proposition relates to the,
"length of term for elected members".
If we must have any elected Members—a proposition that I do not support—I would say that 15 years, as recommended by the Royal Commission, should be the minimum term. However, although their successors may be elected at the end of the time, I think that such Members, having gained the experience in this House, should be allowed to remain here until their lives come to an end.
Our views are sought next on the "term of appointment". I believe that there should be no limitation. We have, so far, always managed without a limitation. So let us continue in that way. The following proposition asks:
"What grounds should lead to statutory expulsion from the House"?
I believe that the Government have a point in this respect. I do not say that every little crime should lead to the expulsion of any of your Lordships. Indeed, I have had a driving offence, and I hope that I shall not gain another. I should not have been very pleased if I had had to give up my membership in your Lordships' House. Serious crime should be a reason for expulsion. If a noble Lord is overtaken by insanity, I am sorry to have to say that I also believe that that should be a reason for expulsion—or, at least, it should be suggested to the unfortunate Peer that he or she should stop coming here.
The final suggestion is whether there should,
"be a change from an expenses-based system of remuneration".
I am comfortably off, but I am not a rich man by modern standards, and I would prefer to be paid untaxed allowances as is the practice at present. I very much hope that that system will remain.
590
I could continue, but I shall not because I have already spoken for 13 minutes. Perhaps I may conclude by making two points. Yes, the Commons must have the last word, but we must always have the power to ask them to think again. My second point is that the House of Lords must not be democratised to any major extent. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for whom I have had a great regard for many years—we both served on the same rather important committee—wishes to go much further, but I hope that your Lordships will not be persuaded by his arguments, and I hope that he will not mind my saying so. If we were democratised to any major extent, it would reduce our capacity and make us less representative of people accustomed to responsibility.
I have not mentioned this before, but I wish to say finally that we must not become "whole-timers". We must keep in touch with the realities of life and not suffer, as Members of the other place are now doing, from having to keep our noses to the parliamentary grindstone.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the experience of my own life does not entitle me to be quite as bold as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in my comments on elections and elected parliaments. What the noble Lord has just said to the House has further increased the enormous respect that I have for him and, indeed, makes me grateful because, as your Lordships will soon see, in several important respects I agree with him.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby made a strong case by saying that we are debating not simply minor reforms of the House of Lords, but the reform of Parliament and that in reality the proper way forward would have been to set up institutions to discuss those reforms. My noble friend also made certain clear statements on the functions and powers of the House of Lords and I agree with all that she said on those points. However, I wish to raise an issue which, in one important respect, leads me to different conclusions from those of my noble friend.
The Government White Paper, in one of the points listed in paragraph 35, states that:
"The House should include expertise and experience to add a distinctive approach to its consideration of legislation, and to help it fulfil its more general scrutiny functions".
I want to argue that that distinctive approach is indeed crucial for the acceptability—and, dare I say, legitimacy?—of a second Chamber and is relevant to the principles on which its composition is based. However, the most important feature of that "distinct approach" is a degree of independence. By that I mean that the House of Lords not only has to encourage independent views by the nature of its membership and working practices, it also has to remain once removed from the pressures of party and of excessive topicality. It has to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, put it, "relatively independent".

591
"Expertise and experience" may well have a role in bringing about this effect, although one caveat is important to note with regard to expertise. The Wakeham report rightly pointed to the pitfalls of the notion that,
"specified vocational or other interest groups … be represented in the second chamber".
Let me add to the arguments of practicality and of principle deployed there the reminder that such corporatism was of course the essence of most versions of fascism. In 1939, Mussolini replaced the Italian Chamber of Deputies with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni in which 22 defined "Estates" were represented. The purpose was to ensure that the "Leader" controlled the chamber rather than the other way around. Any formal representation of "corporations" takes away the political character of a chamber and leads to authoritarian government. I would therefore argue that expertise must be an incidental rather than a constituent feature of the House of Lords.
"Experience", linked in the White Paper with "expertise", is another matter; it has to do with independence. Some noble Lords may have heard me say facetiously that the House of Commons is a Chamber of parents, while the House of Lords is a Chamber of grandparents. I say that with an apology to the younger Members of this House who make such a welcome and valuable contribution. Parents are directly and often nervously involved in issues whereas grandparents have a degree of detachment because they have seen it all and can therefore examine sensitive matters such as cannabis, or even stem cell research, calmly and wisely. What is more, grandparents have usually—though I admit, not always—overcome the ambition disease which tends to cloud minds.
However, I am not suggesting that being a grandparent should be a criterion for the appointments commission. The independence of the second Chamber is as much a matter of style as of formal criteria. In this Chamber, Whips operate by shame rather than by threat. The next election is viewed as much with curiosity as with fear of losing position; lobby efforts are looked at with critical eyes rather than the desire to marshal support—or at least, that is how it should be.
That leads to a comment about party and about elections. The Wakeham commission was clearly right to insist that,
"it would be unrealistic to think that the second chamber could be somehow insulated from party politics".
At the same time, I regret that reform of the Lords so far seems to have led to strengthening the role of parties, and that the next stage of reform will do so again. To talk about "Tony's cronies" is a red herring. What really happens is that, one way or another and whether through appointment or election, party membership, party interest, party loyalty and, above all, the influence of party leadership, gain in importance and the independence of the whole Chamber is reduced. The House is becoming more tribal and, by the same token, less independent.
592
Let me add that that is also true for elections. I cannot insist too strongly that elections are neither the only source of legitimacy nor do they necessarily create legitimacy. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that elections are,
"not the only route to legitimacy".
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, judges are not elected, yet, as a body, they may be more legitimate than some parliamentary institutions. On the other hand, a limited number of representatives selected from party lists and elected by a miserable turn-out to serve for long periods in a badly understood parliament cannot be described as legitimate in any meaningful sense.
The point at which I am aiming is once again well made by the Wakeham commission, which stated:
"Putting it bluntly but accurately, a wholly elected second chamber would in practice mean that British public life was dominated even more than it is already by politicians".
A partly elected second Chamber, too, would increase the influence of party further and, I suspect, it would do something else—it would deceive the electorate by a semblance of democracy when in fact the input of the people would remain very limited. Hybridity as such is not the main issue; an elected element which misleads the electorate rather than empowering it is the issue.
How then does one go about securing, to quote from the Wakeham report again,
"a second chamber which was relatively independent of the influence of political parties"?
First, it is of more than symbolic significance that the group of independent Peers on the Cross-Benches should be both strong and active in their participation in the legislative process. Secondly, an appointments mechanism has to be developed for Members of the House which can take the Wakeham proposals as its starting point, although that requires further thought. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, made some relevant points in this connection. In my view, this mechanism should apply to all Members of the House. Thirdly, it is crucial that the procedures of the House, including the "usual channels", favour independence rather than entrenching party domination.
I make these points whether or not de facto changes in the powers and functions of the two Chambers will occur. The anomaly that this House has become the Committee stage in the legislative activity of Parliament cannot, and probably should not, last. But however powers develop, the strength of the second Chamber has to arise from its "distinctive approach", and this approach has to have a degree of independence from constraint, from party and from day-to-day politics as its condition. When the compromise comes before us in a Bill, I shall judge it on its merits—but its merits for me will depend on the preservation of the independence of your Lordships' House.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not discuss this White Paper in much detail. We have already gone a step too far ahead of ourselves. If ever there was a case that can be compared with the answer given by the Irishman who was asked the way to Ballymurphy, it is this one. If you want to arrive at the best possible next and final stage of Lords reform, you do not start from here.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, therefore, will not be surprised if I revert to the subject of the promised Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. As he knows, I was horrified when, in his winding-up speech on the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, of 18th July 2001, he confirmed that Her Majesty's Government were not now prepared to appoint the Joint Committee and said, in vindication of this, that they had not been able to agree the terms of reference for the Committee with the other two parties. In particular, the Government were not prepared to allow the Joint Committee to discuss the composition of the ultimate House.
The noble and learned Lord quoted the words in the 1999 White Paper:
"The Joint Committee will then"—
that is, after the report of the Royal Commission
"be asked to examine in more detail the Parliamentary aspects of any proposed reform".
He maintains that these words would of themselves limit the terms of reference to the relationship between the two Houses after reform.
The membership of the Royal Commission was broadly based and no more than half were members of either House of Parliament. I had therefore taken those words to mean that, after the Royal Commission had reported, the Joint Committee would examine all its recommendations, including powers and composition, from a strictly parliamentary point of view. With the advantage of hindsight, after listening to everything that has been said, copious correspondence and a long personal interview that the noble and learned Lord very kindly gave me, my reading of the disputed words still stands.
Be that as it may, the undertaking to appoint a Joint Committee was repeated on several occasions throughout the passage of the House of Lords Bill through this House by the then Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and by two law officers of the Crown, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble and learned Lord the present Leader of the House himself, without any pre-conditions of any kind being mentioned. And all these were listed by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, among others, in that debate of 18th July last, to which the noble and learned Lord replied.
Again as the noble and learned Lord knows, when the draft agreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Cranborne about the 92 hereditary Peers who were to
594
remain first became public knowledge, I was against it. I came round to it eventually, however, for one reason and one reason only: that it would give representatives of the hereditary Members of the House an input into the shape that the definitively reformed House would take, which they had already been denied—in my view somewhat maliciously —by not being represented on the Royal Commission itself. It was during the stage of the Joint Committee that the influence of the 92 would have stood the best chance of being felt.
It was only after the House of Lords Bill was safely on the statute book that Her Majesty's Government made clear what they meant by the words "parliamentary aspects" in the White Paper of 1999, and therefore the limitations that they intended to put on the Joint Committee. The Bill had its Royal Assent on 11th November 1999, the day of Prorogation, the State Opening was on 17th November, and the House rose for the Christmas Recess on 12th December and resumed on 10th January 2000.
Then on 24th January, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked, in a supplementary to a Starred Question, that,
"the remit of the Joint Committee will not be restricted simply to considering the proposals in the report, which many of us regard as deeply flawed?".
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, replied:
"We said in our white Paper on House of Lords reform, published approximately a year ago, that the Joint Committee would be established in order to consider the parliamentary aspects of any reform. We stand by that".—[Official Report, 24/1/00; col. 1319.]
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, then Leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers, said:
"I am a little concerned by her suggestion, if I understand her right, that there may be some object in getting common ground before the committee meets. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I took it for granted that the terms of reference of the Joint Committee were stage two reform of the House—nothing narrower than that".
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, replied:
"… given the establishment of the wide-ranging review of House of Lords reform that the Royal Commission undertook, it is not appropriate, in the Government's view, to invite a subsequent approach on that wide basis. That is why we said in the White Paper that we would ask the Joint Committee to look at the parliamentary aspects of implementing any reform. The Government do not feel that it would be appropriate to invite another, new type of Royal Commission drawn from within the Palace of Westminster to look at precisely the same issues as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues usefully spent the last year doing".—[Official Report, 24/1/00; col. 1321.]
I have quoted these exchanges rather fully because they show beyond doubt that whatever private reservations Her Majesty's Government may have had about the role of the Joint Committee, they had not made them clear to the rest of the House while the House of Lords Bill was still before it, as it was their clear responsibility to do.
After 30 years on the Front Bench, both in government and in opposition, I find even the suggestion of any undertaking from the Dispatch Box being disregarded as total anathema. And this is not just any undertaking, it was one that was largely

595
instrumental in getting a highly controversial constitutional Bill through the House with the least possible trouble to the government of the day. This is a breach, or at the very least what will be seen as a breach, of a pledge that, for the very future of the House that we are now discussing, is something that we dare not allow to go by default.
I have noticed over the years that any party that has a larger than usual majority in another place is inclined to find the usual rules and procedures irksome and, because of the size of that majority, somehow gets the impression that they do not apply to them. I watched my own party suffer under this delusion on occasions in the 1980s and 1990s and I did not like it then any more than I do now. Because those same rules and procedures often carry a built-in safety net, which is designed to protect the country from an over-powerful government. It is at times like this, therefore, that far from becoming obsolete they are more necessary than ever before.
I would urge the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to give the most serious consideration to all these points before he comes to reply to the whole debate tomorrow night.
5.21 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I intend to concentrate on points in the White Paper which are specifically relevant to the issue of ensuring a proper independent element in the reformed House.
I have been one of a group of six individual independent Peers who have got together and prepared a paper on these matters which has been submitted to the Government in response to their White Paper. I say in passing that anyone who is rash enough to say that he or she would like to see that paper is welcome to a copy.
One of the members of that group is the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who played a key role in the proceedings on the 1999 Act. He would have wished to lake part in this debate but is prevented from doing so as, for pressing personal reasons, he cannot be present tomorrow. He has asked me to express his regret at not being able to take part in the debate.
On the issues of independence, I make a distinction between those on the one hand who come to this House as members of a political party, whether elected or appointed—and I see some force in the argument of those who say that they see very little difference between appointment and election under the closed list system—and on the other hand those who are here as independents. I emphasise that it is plain that on the basis of any electoral system of the kind contemplated by the Government there is no real prospect of the election of an independent. Thus, all the elected members will inevitably belong to some or other political party.
On the generally accepted basis that the other place is to retain its primary role, the House of Lords has to provide something which is different, complementary and useful. The natural conclusion is that the House of Lords should continue, first, to be more independent
596
and less partisan than the other place and, secondly, to contain experience and expertise in a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are of direct relevance to legislating and to the main topics frequently in issue in Parliament. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on that topic.
The natural source for independence, and for experience and expertise, is the independent Cross-Benchers. That is precisely what they are here to provide. That said, I hasten to make plain that I recognise that many party Members in this House have considerable areas of expertise and display a considerable degree of independence of their Whip. If that independence is to continue, as it should, it is vital that political Members, once in the House, should be assured of their position for a substantial period and that they are under no threat of not being re-appointed or of being de-selected. Here, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane.
A quota of appointed independent Peers is the obvious, indeed the only, way of having a non-party-political element in this House. The more one has criticisms of the rest of the government scheme, the greater the need for that independent element. I say in passing that, taking the figures placed before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if 40 per cent of the electorate do not vote for any political party, then these Benches represent more of our citizens than any political party does.
Whatever is decided about election versus appointment, the source of independents has to be appointment by a commission of some kind. However, the Government's proposals will achieve a satisfactory independent element only if their quota is large enough and is filled only by those who are genuinely independent of party influence. At present, virtually everyone who does not take a party Whip and is not a Bishop is labelled a Cross-Bencher and all are lumped together in one figure. It is very encouraging that the Government recognise that under the new system this treatment will no longer be appropriate. They have expressly accepted that the members of "other parties" will count against the political quota and that any one appointed as a Law Lord should fall into that separate category.
But there remains the issue of those who come to this House as political Members, whether appointed or elected, and who then cease to receive their party Whip. Are they to be numbered as part of the independent quota? Surely the right answer must be: yes, if they have truly been converted to independence and have abandoned their party ties—and perhaps also a suitable transition period has elapsed; but, no, they should not so count if their move is for other reasons. There are various other reasons why someone may move. They can include the withdrawal of the party Whip or the perfectly proper feeling of a Member who holds, or has held, some office or appointment and who considers that, by reason of that position, it is unsuitable to be seen as a supporter of

597
any political party. Such a person may rightly sit on the Cross Benches, but he or she should not count as part of the independent quota.
The third reason for such a move may be described as purely tactical. Unless the second part of my proposition regarding those who do not move genuinely is accepted, there will be an inevitable temptation for Whips to induce their less regular or less reliable Members to move, so that they count against the independent quota and thus create a vacancy in the political quota which the Whips can then fill with some more reliable Lobby fodder. It is vitally important that the Government make plain to us how they intend to protect the independent quota from infiltration or from counting by people who rightly sit on the Cross Benches but who are not truly independent. The Government have accepted the principle that only genuine independents should count. We shall be interested to hear—in the closing speech, I hope—how they intend to operate the system to achieve those ends.
The White Paper recommends a quota of 20 per cent of the membership of the final House to be independents. Whether 20 per cent is sufficient will no doubt be discussed by others, but I should be grateful to have definite confirmation from the Government that whatever the final percentage is, it will be applied throughout the transitional phase from the passing of the Bill until the final House of 600 is achieved.
I was disturbed by some of the figures that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave in his opening speech. It must be recognised that when the House loses its 92 hereditaries and gains 120 elected members, all of whom will obviously belong to a political party, overnight the political representation will increase by 56, but the independent element will be reduced by 28—the number of hereditaries who sit on these Benches. I was disturbed to find, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did his mathematics, that he made no suggestion of extra independents being appointed as part of the final figure of seven hundred and thirty-something to compensate for that gross overnight imbalance. There must be a clear understanding that that imbalance will be corrected immediately, at the time of the change, and that the proportionate quota will be maintained throughout the transitional period.
To achieve independence on these Benches or within a political party, it is essential that the individuals in question have nothing to fear or to hope for from the powers that be, whether those powers are the Government, the party Whips or an appointed body containing party elements. At present, your Lordships can speak or vote as they see fit with no apprehension that they may be deselected or forcibly retired. In the future, that necessary condition of independence can continue only if the period of their appointment is long and non-renewable. One solution is appointment for life, with proper provision for retirement when the Member is no longer able or willing to take a proper
598
part. If that is not acceptable, the appointment should be either until a fixed age, let us say 75, or for a fixed term, let us say 15 years.
There is another cogent reason for wanting a high degree of permanence and continuity. Once one has become a Member of this House, one gradually discovers who is—and who is not—a sound and reliable voice on topics that are outside one's own expertise. It is an unusual feature of this House that what is said in debates, in committees or in informal discussion can still affect or alter the way in which Members think and vote. That depends on respect for and reliance on those with special expertise whose arguments one finds convincing. I shall take a deceased example to avoid any problem—the late Lady Faithfull. Over the years, I am sure that many Members of the House learnt that what she said about children was almost inevitably a sound guide to their own decisions. Such confidence in the opinion of others can grow up only with a large degree of permanence. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that, whatever the period of appointment may be, it is long and that there is no need to fear deselection or to hope for reappointment.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I strongly echo the noble Viscount's plea for the maintenance of the number of independents in your Lordships' House. I shall refer in particular to two speeches that have been made during this remarkable debate: those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The right reverend Prelate made an excellent point about how much his role here is enhanced by what he spends most of his time doing in his diocese. I also echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, about membership of political parties and the peculiar ways in which members are affected by the fact of belonging. In most cases, the effects tend to be baleful rather than beneficial.
The rather dim document that we are discussing today is at least a little bold in part of its title—"Completing the Reform". One does not have to be a bold prophet to say that it is very unlikely that this document will be the last milestone on the road to reform. It revives and justifies the protest that we on this side of the House have made from the beginning that the Government, in their determination to hunt down the hereditaries, have neglected the problems of Parliament as a whole. The White Paper follows suit.
While mentioning White Papers, I might point out that when I was young—a long time ago—White Papers were very drab in appearance. They remain drab in their content, but an attempt has evidently been made to put a highly coloured cover on the drab contents in the hope that the brilliance of the cover will conceal the drabness of the content.
Labour's election triumph—and it was a triumph—in 1997 gave the Government a chance to do something to sustain Parliament in a changed and rapidly changing age. It is idle for them to go on

599
prattling about democracy but to do little or nothing to sustain the institution that is central to its survival. Far from looking at the problem as a whole, the Government have been content to tinker with your Lordships' House, which is less powerful and less important than the House of Commons, and perhaps also less in need of change.
It is generally agreed that the House of Commons need have no fear of its powers and privileges being in any way encroached upon by your Lordships' House as it is at present constituted. Rather, it is the Government who continually threaten to bypass and undermine Parliament. Of course, they cosset Members of Parliament, providing them with the comforts of Portcullis House and encouraging them to make their hours and voting times more convenient. It is permissible to express some doubt as to whether increased comfort is particularly friendly to democratic governance.
I had hoped to see in the White Paper, first, some assurance that—here I employ an exceedingly hackneyed metaphor, for which I apologise—the playing field on which Parliament competes with the executive will be made less tilted. Secondly, I looked for a recognition of the need to improve the procedures under which the cascade of primary law is examined. Thirdly, I hoped for some thoughts on how Parliament might be better equipped to control the flood of secondary legislation. Instead, we have the lamentable proposal to remove your Lordships' power to reject an order, no matter how inept. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Strathclyde say quite clearly that we shall oppose that proposal. I was very glad also to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, say the same thing in her splendid speech.
I am disappointed with the White Paper. I also regret that the Government have shown little or no sign of being really worried by the diminished regard in which Parliament is held by the public, as witnessed by the pitiful numbers—to which my noble friend Lord Renton has called attention—who thought it worthwhile to vote in the last general election.
I do not challenge—I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House does for one moment—the pre-eminence of the Commons, although one might pause in passing to ask how well performance justifies that pre-eminence. However, I recognise that that is an affair for the other place and not for your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, the genuineness of the Government's concern for that pre-eminence, which is repeated again and again in the White Paper, is slightly open to doubt and question if only because of the frequency of the complaints that one hears from the other end of the building about the way in which Parliament is frequently bypassed, overlooked and neglected. It is just possible that the Government's concern for Parliament is not entirely different from the concern of the walrus and the carpenter, in Alice in Wonderland, for the oysters they were about to consume.
When I have the chance, I agree with the Government. I rather agree with them that an elected second Chamber—I think that this is their view—
600
would be a far greater threat to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons than a largely nominated second Chamber ever could be. In thinking of how a new second Chamber should be constituted, we have to have in mind that in modern politics, sadly, the independent Member—save for the Cross Benches in your Lordships' House—has been squeezed out and become extinct. Consequently, politicians have increasingly become the creature of political parties, whose influence is often both excessive and baleful.
A largely nominated House, to which I see little objection, would provide a place in Parliament for people other than professional politicians: people who would not even consider standing for election but still have much to offer, such as, I stress, scientists, engineers and representatives of the Armed Forces and police; people whose lives have not been filled and conditioned—I almost said contaminated—by their membership of a political party.
I find it difficult to erase from my mind the suspicion that the Government's paramount intention and concern, above and beyond everything in the White Paper, is to keep your Lordships' House in its place. It must not be allowed to become a source of irritation to Ministers of the Crown. But what other useful role does it have?
I have reached the conclusion of my remarks. I should like to end simply with a reminder that your Lordships' House was once dubbed as "Mr. Balfour's poodle". I fear that, if we continue down the road indicated in the White Paper, your Lordships' House may well be turned into a kennel full of poodles.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was very interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, had to say about the independence of people in this House. I cannot help but observe—particularly following the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—that both the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the late Lady Faithfull were both members of a political party. They both took the party Whip, although the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wears it lightly, as he has done for many years past. The same is true of Lady Faithfull. I make the point simply to illustrate the fact that independence and membership of a political party are not necessarily contradictory.
I shall be relatively brief, as the points that I want to make do not improve with repetition and the lines of argument are now clearly drawn. I should, however, like to deal with one matter before making my remarks on the White Paper. There seems to be a feeling that this is not a political House, but of course it is a political House: it does political things, passes political legislation, and inevitably has political parties. The idea that somehow or other the British Constitution can have a second Chamber that works as if it were populated by a set of independent Solons, however wise they might be, is totally fallacious.
Of course I am in favour of keeping the Cross-Benchers: I would give them no less than one-third of the total membership of the House. I should hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, would at least to

601
a certain extent approve of that. However, this is not merely a deliberative House. It is not only a debating Chamber but a House of Parliament, and it needs to be regarded and treated as such.
I was pleased to hear the Lord Chancellor say that the Government are looking forward to hearing the contributions of Members of this House as regards their proposals in the White Paper. It is quite right that they should have an open mind, or at least a mind that does not seem to be firmly closed. It is quite right also that they should say that they are still seeking a consensus. I hope that a consensus is possible. At some stage, however, consultation will have to cease and decisions will have to be made. I hope that we can reach a consensus on these issues. A consensus might he possible, but achieving one will require some determination by the Government.
One important aspect of the White Paper is that the democratic principle now seems to be accepted (though in a severely truncated form). The idea that one can confine those directly elected to 20 per cent is unrealistic. I do not believe we can have tokenism of that kind when dealing with representative government. But gone at last is the argument that somehow or other elected and nominated Peers cannot sit comfortably in the one House. The issue for the Government now, as it emerges from the White Paper and the various statements that have been made, is not whether there should be an elected element, but how large that elected element should be.
It is worth looking for a moment at what the public seem to want in that respect. Not for the first time it seems to be in advance of government thinking. The latest polls indicate that there is widespread public support for a more democratic upper House. Following the publication of the White Paper, a national opinion poll in the Evening Standard of 14th November last year found 71 per cent backing for a largely elected House and 91 per cent thinking that 120 elected Members was too few. A poll by Democratic Audit submitted to the Royal Commission found that 84 per cent of the public favoured election over appointment for the upper House. In an ICM poll of last September 78 per cent said that the Labour Party should commit itself to a majority rather than a minority elected replacement in the House of Lords.
The fact is that the electorate as a whole seems no longer prepared to put up with a second Chamber whose composition is primarily determined by Prime Ministerial patronage. With respect to the White Paper, whatever else it does, it does not abolish that.
I support the general principle that emerges from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that the system of political appointments to this House should come to an end. Where we differ is with what it should be replaced. He would replace it with appointments by a public appointments commission. I would replace it by direct elections.
At both the 1997 and the 2001 elections the Labour Party campaigned for a more democratic and representative House. When we were in opposition the
602
phrase we all used, going back indeed to the days when John Smith led my party, was that the second Chamber should be predominantly but not exclusively elected. That was my position seven, eight and nine years ago in opposition; it was my position in the brief time that I was permitted to serve in the government; and it remains my position today. I shall be interested to know at some stage, from somebody, what has changed. Why has the position altered? If we had said in 1997 and repeated in 2001 that that was the firm position for which this Government were going to fight, we would have found it much easier to take reforms of this Chamber through.
I want to see, as is well known to many noble Lords— I have said it often enough—a second Chamber two-thirds of which is directly elected and one-third of which is nominated. I believe the political part of the Lords should be by election and the Cross-Bench, independent element should be by appointment.
Let me try briefly to deal with the question of legitimacy. In this country legitimacy comes primarily from the exercise of democratic choice. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I do not follow him in his arguments. I have never understood the argument that appointments can produce a more generally representative House. The public are used to elections; they are part of the fabric of the constitution. Sometimes they may choose not to vote. But it is a democratic right not to turn up and put a cross on the ballot paper just as much as it is a right to do so.
If that is the position as regards the rest of the constitution, why not this Chamber? There is no reason in principle why two-thirds of this Chamber should not predominantly be elected. Therefore one has to look outside the principle of the democratic legitimacy point in order to find some reason why we are supposed to be different.
The argument is sometimes heard—we heard it this afternoon— that to have over 50 per cent of this House directly elected would be to produce a clone of the House of Commons. I do not believe that for an instant. The powers and functions of the two Chambers are clear. The electoral systems would be distinct. The claim that a more democratic second Chamber would challenge the supremacy of the Commons or produce legislative gridlock is surely misplaced. A more democratic outcome would not mean that the upper Chamber would be equally as legitimate or powerful as the House of Commons. The upper House could not threaten the primacy of the Commons. We would continue to have strictly limited powers and functions. Members would be elected for a different and secondary Chamber with no role in determining the government or controlling finance, which are quite rightly the roles of the House of Commons.
Nor would the second Chamber be able to veto a Commons Bill or, under the terms of the White Paper, any statutory instrument. If a minority of Cross-Bench appointees were included too, as many suggest and the Government propose, the difference between the two

603
Houses would be further emphasised. It would be arithmetically impossible for any one party to control the second Chamber.
Again, I try hard but for the life of me I do not see what problems that set of facts raises. It may make it more irritating for the Government. It may force the executive to be more responsive and more accountable. At one stage in my political career, many years ago when I was naïve, I thought that was the function of Parliament. Perhaps I am wrong.
The opportunity for major constitutional reform seems to come about once every 50 or 60 years. It would be sad if the opportunity to produce a more workable second Chamber and to resolve the issue of the relationships between the two Houses were now to be missed. I do not pretend that those relations would always he simple or smooth. It cannot be expected that between two Houses with credibility and legitimacy it would he. But it is worth noting that a report for the Irish Senate published in 1997 found that of 58 second Chambers around the world, 41 were wholly or largely elected. Only two (Malaysia and Swaziland) had a mixed appointed/elected membership where the majority was appointed. In only one western democracy—Canada—was the second Chamber wholly appointed.
The truth is that no government like making life more difficult for themselves. A second Chamber where the majority were elected would prove more troublesome to the executive. In common with most of the country, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that is a prospect which he and many others would welcome.
Many MPs believe that this House is basically irrelevant to the real business of Parliament. Anyone who has been a Member of the other place knows well how little attention is paid to this Chamber. It could easily be dismissed when it was dominated by the hereditary peerage. It still suffers from the total absence of any kind of democratic credibility or legitimacy. It can be dismissed as being appointed and not elected. But if we want a properly functioning second Chamber, not merely a legislative reviser, then we have to give it that credibility and legitimacy to do its job.
I have said on a number of occasions outside this House that in essence the argument is about what sort of second Chamber we want. If we want the family pet of the constitution—colourful, good for the tourists, little power and very conscious of its own superiority—then that is what we will get. If we want a properly functioning second Chamber which is part of the legislative process and part of the constitution of this country, then it has to change. I fear that yesterday I went a little far in describing these proposals as "half-baked"; perhaps that is putting it a little high. But they are seriously under-cooked.
5.59 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who informs his speeches with an intellectual concentration
604
and sharpness which produces great admiration. We also admire him for his independence. His career has been rather like that of the Benedictine monks: one minute they are scrubbing the floor; then they become abbot; and then they are back scrubbing the floor again. The noble Lord has fulfilled all those functions with great grace and lack of resentment and has continued to make a major contribution to our discussions in this House.
Peering into the future I venture to opine that the White Paper is unlikely to become a distinguished constitutional document. The root of its weakness is that the Government rushed into the project of getting rid of the old basis for the House of Lords without ever having properly thought through what was to be put in its place. As a result they have been living from hand to mouth and going from one expedient to another ever since.
Let us consider the question of an elected or an appointed chamber. There is something to be said for an elected chamber. There is something to he said for an appointed chamber. But for a partly elected, partly appointed chamber, which carries within itself a mass of contradictions, there is nothing to be said whatsoever. It is a hyphenated hybrid which will not be a permanent solution to our constitutional problem, but will lay out problems for the future.
Let us consider the other central point in this White Paper—the appointments commission. It is unclear to me, having read the White Paper, and, indeed, the Royal Commission report, what powers the appointments commission will have. Will it have the powers of the Prime Minister to advise the Crown with binding effect to appoint Members of this House? If I am right in that—I should be grateful for clarification from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—it is a major constitutional change putting power in the hands of a strictly irresponsible body because it is elected by no one. It is said to be responsible to the House of Lords but only in the vaguest possible sense. I am reminded of a favourite saying of my mother, "Who are these people, why are they there and why should we listen to them?"
The Prime Minister has from time to time been denounced as a control freak. I must say that anyone who can control the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House is not a control freak but a control genius. I have known every Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain. Your Lordships may find that difficult to believe, but I am well preserved! They all become control freaks sooner or later, wherever they start from. There is only one Prime Minister in my experience who did not do so and that was Sir Alec Douglas-Home who was prevented by the true nobility of his nature and by his moral and physical courage from having to resort to such expedients and devices.
Another matter arises in the discussion and in the White Paper and that is the question of patronage. There has been patronage as long as there has been a House of Lords. What is an hereditary Peer but an appointed Peer whose appointer has passed into what

605
the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, with her usual outspokenness, referred to as the next world where we must all end up? However, she was diplomatic enough not to say in which part she thought individual noble Lords would end up.
There has been much talk of transparency. That is the latest instalment of the hypocrisy and humbug that have made us a great nation. How can the appointments commission possibly be transparent when we do not know how its members will be appointed and who will be considered? How can we judge whether the members of the commission will do their work properly? I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House why should not the names of those who apply to be considered as Members of this House be made public? If they wish to be Members of this House they should lay their cards upon the table and let other people have a look at them and express their opinion. That would be transparency, but there is no suggestion of that from the Government.
The principal matter on which I wish to speak concerns the very important question of religious representation in this House. I certainly have no objection at all to the presence here of the bishops of the established Church in a representational and institutional capacity. If I had any doubts, they would have been resolved by the powerful and moving speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
One of the key recommendations of the Royal Commission report was that there should be a wider representation of religions, faiths and denominations. What has happened to that? It has completely disappeared from the White Paper. I refer to the Roman Catholic Church as it is the Church about which I know marginally more than the others. I assure noble Lords that I do not mention the following matter in any triumphalist way but the figures of the practising members of the Church of England and of the Catholic Church are revealing. According to the latest Church statistics of 1999, there are 1.6 million practising Anglicans and 1.8 million practising Catholics who attend Mass weekly. Can it really be right to exclude their Episcopal representatives from this House? You might say, "Yes, historically that is what has happened". But, historically, the Government have embarked on what they claim is a radical reform of the House. So let them look at that issue and let us know what they think about it and what they propose to do. The whole question is dismissed in two sentences in the White Paper. It states that the practical difficulties are too great, although it does not say what they are, and that most other denominations and faiths have no hierarchy. I have heard the Catholic Church accused of many things in my life, but that has never been selected as a cardinal fault.
I wish to say a few words about the position of the Catholic bishops, as far as the circumstances allow. The Catholic bishops do not seek membership of this House. Indeed, although some are not unfavourably disposed to the matter some are strongly opposed to it. The memorandum to the Royal Commission, which
606
was placed before the commission and signed by Cardinal Hume on behalf of the bishops in 1999, contained what amounted to the provisional acceptance of an invitation to become Members of this House. There are difficulties in that regard. There is a canon law that prohibits clerics from taking part in politics. I do not know how that leaves the position of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See, because he is an independent sovereign in his own right. However, those are the inconsistencies of history. Good theology is no guarantee of good government—otherwise, Catholics would be placed in a nice dilemma by the history of the Papal States.
There are two further questions that need to be addressed. First, if Catholic bishops came to this House, what would be their status? Would they be spiritual Peers or Cross-Bench Peers? We need guidance from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House on that important and serious question.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord St John of Fawsley: Well, my Lords, that should not be beyond the capabilities of the noble and learned Lord, who is good at everything else; I do not see why he should not be good in this regard, as well.
Secondly, how many bishops would there be? That raises an important issue. It is clear that the present Cardinal, for example, would not be content with token representation, which would give us the worst of all worlds. There is studied vagueness in this part of the report, and I therefore make a constructive and positive suggestion; namely, that if Catholic bishops were invited to be Members of this House, there should be a definite number of them—perhaps the five Archbishops in England. That should be part of an invitation that I am sure would be seriously and gratefully considered by the bishops.
I end with a quotation from the document that was signed by Cardinal Hume and sent to the Royal Commission. It states:
"It is no part of the bishop's job to seek power. Indeed the Gospel we serve is often set against 'the powers which rule this world'. But at the same time, there cannot be no-go areas for the Church. Our duty is to serve the Gospel, to give voice to the fundamental spiritual and moral truths about humanity, and to speak for those who have no power, no voice or who are dispossessed. If an invitation were extended to us which would enable us to do this more effectively, without in any way compromising either our role as bishops or the Law of the Church, or the presence, by election or appointment, of other Catholics in the Second Chamber, our view is that we should accept it".
6.13 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before going any further down the road to reform, the Government need to answer honestly the question, "Do you want a second Chamber?". The answers to that question, as provided in the White Paper, are less than honest. Yes, the Government want a second Chamber, but why? The second Chamber that is envisaged by the Government in the White Paper will provide no check on anything that another place wants to do, because it will be so composed that it will be virtually impossible

607
to defeat a government in a Division. It is not easy to do so now. By the time that the number of independent Members has been reduced to 120 and that of Government supporters has been beefed up to a similar proportion vis-à-vis the other parties, as obtains in the House of Commons, it will be as nearly impossible as makes no difference to ask another place to think again.
There is absolutely no point in having a second Chamber in which party strengths approximate to those in the House of Commons. It would be almost impossible to win a Division against the government of the day. One would merely have a rubber stamp for the House of Commons, which is, of course, what the present Government want and what the White Paper proposes.
I point out to the Government that in all likelihood they will probably not be in power for ever and that one day there will be a government of another complexion. In that situation, they might not like the arrangement so much. They are proposing single-chamber government that is thinly disguised as two-chamber government. It would be much more honest to abolish the House of Lords altogether. In that case, the whole country would know that we had single-chamber government. That is already the case in Scotland and Wales. The House of Commons would have to take responsibility for what it did, instead of being able to pretend that the House of Lords was partly or wholly responsible. It would he much cheaper, too.
The House of Commons would have to take over various committees and functions which are currently the responsibility of the House of Lords, in order to find appropriate time. The volume of legislation would have to be drastically reduced, which would be no bad thing. We should also probably have to have a written constitution.
If a second Chamber is retained, it should do all that it currently does and possibly a bit more. In that case, a House that was composed in the following way might be worth having. It would have 240 independent Members, who would be appointed by the appointments commission, and who would include representatives of various professions, religions, races and so on, and retired Law Lords. Those Members would be appointed for 15 years or, better still, for life by the appointments commission. I should retain the 26 Bishops and the working Law Lords. Again, 82 regional Members would be appointed for a term of 15 years by the appointments commission. Finally, there would be 240 party Members, divided between Labour, the Liberals and the Conservatives, in such proportions as the appointments commission, in its wisdom, deems expedient. The appointments would be nominated and made by the appointments commission and the term of office would be for 10 to 15 years. That would of course need adjusting should a fourth party of any significance emerge in the House of Commons. That would be the job of the appointments commission.
608
As the White Paper suggests, the appointments commission should be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen but perhaps on the advice of the Privy Council, leaders of the political parties in the House of Lords and the Convenor of the Cross Benches. That way, one might get a reasonably independently minded appointments commission.
If the committee on the working of the House decides, in its wisdom, that the House should keep office hours, Members will have to be paid a salary as well as expenses, because it would be very difficult for them to earn a living outside the House. Exceptions to that might include existing life Peers who wish to continue to be Members of the new House. They would not have an obligation to attend regularly and participate in committee work. Those considerations might possibly also apply to the Law Lords and Bishops, who would already be receiving salaries. Those who did not receive salaries would continue to receive expenses.
I am very glad that the present life Peers are to be granted a courtesy that was not granted to hereditary Peers when they were kicked out in 1999; namely, of remaining Members of the House for life with the ability to retire, should they wish to do so.
Unlike the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, my Convenor, I should like the reformed Chamber no longer to be called the "House of Lords" but the "Senate". Members of it should be "Muggins Mugwump, MS", unless they happen to be a Lord already, in which case they will be "Lord Mugwump, MS". That will finally separate the second Chamber from the peerage. In that case, no more peerages would need to be created at all.
All the present powers should remain, including that to reject secondary legislation, and the power to amend secondary legislation should be added. Most important of all the present powers of this House is the power to prevent any Parliament extending its life beyond five years.
My plea for double the proposed ration of independent Members is entirely my own and I do not in any way speak for the rest of my colleagues. However, it may be helpful and of interest to say something of the voting habits of the Cross-Benchers. The late Lord Halsbury, who was so much loved and respected on all sides of this House, made a study of them. He conclusion was that in general the Cross Benches divided approximately 50/50 for and against the Government. But when they voted on an issue about which there were strong views in the country, then the vast majority of them normally supported those views.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, where do I stand on this matter? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fairly asks that question. During the passage of the Bill on reform of the House, he asked, "Where do you stand?". First, I am wholly against any form of elected Chamber for the reasons given far better than I could give them by the noble Lords, Lord

609
Gordon of Strathblane and Lord Dahrendorf, and by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley. In a curious way I believe that I am perhaps with the Government on that point; but if I am, it is the point of departure because on the rest of the proposals, I stand against them.
I support the proposal for the retention of the 92 hereditaries, as advanced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I have discussed this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who I see is in his place but who is unable to be present for the debate tomorrow, and with whom I am in total agreement. I also support retention of an appointed hereditary element in some form. There is not time to deal with the machinery of such a proposal but at a later stage I may try to deal a little with the principle, which emanates from a paper written by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
Lastly, I share the view of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that one must have a form of consensus. I support his speech, in particular what he said in relation to secondary legislation. I believe that that was the view put forward by my noble friend, and it was assuredly the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who made a wholly remarkable and magnificent speech, quite beyond the plain of politics—on a plain of responsible address to a parliamentary problem. I think that they are saying—and if I am right, this is my view—that you must have a form of consensus and get the parties together before you can start to formulate your own views on how to reform. Once one has heard what is put forward in that light on the assumption that a Joint Select Committee is created to advise, then, whatever one's own views, one will tend to compromise and accept what is put forward. That is our traditional approach. That, in a clumsy way, is where I stand. On the benign assumption that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will understand that we cannot trim our pipes to the drum, I welcome the opportunity that he has given us for this debate.
The concern of this speech is with the hereditary element—now the 92, serving under Section 2 of the House of Lords Act. The entitlement of the Weatherill amendment is not the same as Section 2, which represents the Cranborne agreement to which the noble and learned Lord was a party. Again, that was not exactly represented in the Weatherill amendment. That is the concern. Albeit that some proposals, most of which do not require legislation, are acceptable; it is the pre-emptive threat to eliminate those 92 before enactment of the Government's declared constitutional agenda—to cast them out of the threshold—which is contrary to the Cranborne agreement to which the noble and learned Lord was a party. The Cross Benches were also a party to it. It is not in the interests of the House that they should be cast out. It is not in the interests of the people that they should be cast out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, my noble friend Lord Peyton and other noble Lords pointed out, the
610
people no longer have ready access to having their views expressed in Parliament. In that context, this House has an important and truly representative capacity. I need not go into examples but some occurred before Christmas.
It is appreciated that, in the Government's scheme of things, unless the 92 are removed—I am not much good at the mathematics—the whole structure of the edifice on composition (paragraphs 35 to 64) would collapse as if a house of cards. I accept that and I say, "Well, so be it". In any event, as my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell said on the Statement on this matter, the parties in this House are deeply divided on the issue of composition. If so, let it be accepted. That would mean that there is no reason why the 92 should not remain. Why should that be? It was because of the Cranborne agreement—the agreement brokered by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, whose absence is our deprivation. It was the result of an initiative of four Cross-Benchers—the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Marsh, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and Lord Carnarvon. They went to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. The idea was that perhaps something like what eventually became the Cranborne agreement would emerge. They then went to see my noble friend Lord Cranborne.
Later my noble friend took over the management and control of the matter and brokered the agreement. It had the support of the Government and the Opposition, and was ratified by the House. But it was tainted with hybridity and could only be implemented under Section 2 after about 14 drafts of Standing Orders.
I have gone into the matter in a little detail to point to the essence of this argument on the Floor of the House which is dependent on what was agreed between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Cranborne, and what was said in the House. That agreement would be broken if the 92 were eliminated before their time has ended under the agreement. Why is that so? It is because the essence of that agreement is that they should remain until the enactment of a Bill which implements the Government's then declared constitutional agenda. That provision would be implemented in the light of the recommendations of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to be set up for that purpose.
At that time, the constitutional agenda, as understood by your Lordships' House, both before and after the passage of the Bill, was that there would be substantive comprehensive reform to modernise the powers, functions and composition of the House in conjunction with those of another place. That point was another taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. These reforms should be produced in the light of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
It is absolutely plain that the proposals for reform in the White Paper do not reflect that declared constitutional agenda, as was recognised, albeit in

611
another context, by the timid tinkering article in the Independent of 8th November. That Joint Select Committee has never been set up.
Under the Weatherill amendment, which has worked well—and there is no reason to suppose that it will not continue to do so—the 92 are entitled to remain. Their removal would substantially impair the working of the House. The volte-face on the setting up of the Joint Select Committee was referred to in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, to which my noble friend Lord Denham has referred; and no more need be said about it, except that the Government would be reneging on the Cranborne agreement if they removed the hereditaries on the proposals in this Bill which do not in any way reflect the declared constitutional agenda.
Perhaps I may end by saying this. I have referred to the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. In the House Magazine on 11th November 1999, the noble Lord expressed the devout wish that, to preserve continuity, if the Cranborne agreement worked well—we know that it has worked well—it could be left alone to retain in this House a number of very able hereditary Peers to serve the nation and, in particular, as the noble Lord put it, to serve on the Select Committees. That matter has never yet been debated, but it would lie within the remit of a Joint Committee of both Houses if one were set up.
That is the case for the retention of a hereditary element in this House, and, at all events, for the retention of the 92 under the Cranborne agreement.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, the debate has been going on for some three and-a-half hours. I feel that I am beginning to draw on your Lordships' powers of concentration, well-known stamina and good will. I am only number 17 out of a team of 82. However, I hope that I shall have your Lordships' indulgence of good will if I try, for my part, to be as brief as possible.
I want to focus on the elected element. I agree to a large extent with the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Gordon of Strathblane and Lord Dahrendorf. I begin with the qualities of the House which are widely admired outside. Perhaps I can say that as a recent entrant. If one talks to people about the House of Lords, the qualities they mention are independence, the experience that is brought to bear on the topics under discussion and the sheer quality of performance. I refer also to a matter that has not been mentioned today— the scrutiny of European legislation. That is done to a level through this House and its committees that has no match anywhere within the Union.
With regard to domestic legislation, we saw with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill a very high standard of performance by this House. It may not have been agreeable to everyone, but the quality and intensity of the debate was of a high level. There are
612
also expert debates on specialised topics. For example, yesterday there was a debate about the European Court of Auditors. All participants in that debate were people with specialised knowledge who knew exactly what they were talking about. It was a standard of debate which this House produces consistently and which is not matched.
Perhaps I may say something about the overall reputation of the House. I say it on the basis of the work of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, the Committee on Standards in Public Life. When I was not chairman it held an inquiry into, among other issues, the standards in the House of Commons and the problems in the House of Commons. Much adverse evidence came from the public in relation to the House of Commons. When I was chairman we carried out investigations into the House of Lords and the reaction was completely different. There was not one word of criticism of the way in which this House functions. It is held in the highest repute. So when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, talking about the low standing of politicians, I believe—I may be wrong—that we are talking about a problem at the other end of the Corridor. I do not think that that opinion is held of the Members of this House.
One day, we may have a debate on what are the underlying problems with the public perception of politicians. That is a fascinating topic. On my shortlist, I would include the perceived lack of candour on the part of Ministers and other politicians, failure to admit error, the response made to a good point when in a corner of saying what someone did when they were last in power, sharp practice, such as publishing had news on the day after Parliament goes into recess, and of course, more recently, the phenomenon of spin. We could have an interesting discussion about why that situation has come about.
Curiously enough, the remedy of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for all that is to fill the House almost entirely with party politicians—virtually 100 per cent. I detect not a consensus but a large measure of agreement in the House that it would be a recipe for disaster to have a high proportion of elected Members. We would inevitably create a conflict between two sovereign bodies, each claiming legitimacy. Amusing points were made earlier about how those most recently elected would claim to be more legitimate than the last lot.
I am not in favour of having any elected Members of the House. We used to hear a good deal about the word "legitimacy" earlier in talk about reform of the House of Lords. I must say that it is a most unfortunate word to have entered currency. Legal legitimacy is one thing: the hereditary Peers were as legally legitimate as anything in sight. Moral legitimacy is different, and is being chipped away in the White Paper. Paragraph 37 states:
"It is sometimes argued that only direct election can provide legitimacy for the second chamber. This was not an argument accepted by the Commission or by the Government".

613
Paragraph 38 states:
"Its role"—
that is, the House of Lords,
"is one of a subordinate revising and deliberative Chamber, for which direct election has a role to play but is neither a necessary nor a sufficient basis for its membership".
It follows that any argument that we must have an elected element to confer legitimacy on the House has disappeared. The Lord Chancellor himself said today that election is not the only route to legitimacy.
So I hope that legitimacy will disappear from the argument. We are constructing something on paper that will have to work in practice. We are trying to get the best thing that we can, and it does not help to say that this, that or the other part of the legislature is legitimate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a powerful case, but will he concede that in this case we are concerned with legitimacy only in one quarter—in the eyes of another place? Its Members are unlikely to deny that election confers legitimacy.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, we have earlier heard opinion polls cited. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, cited them as something to which we should have regard and which should influence our conduct. The argument seems to be that opinion polls show that by a margin of about 85 per cent the man in the street would like a greater input into this House. So we must consider legitimacy more widely than simply in the eyes of Members of another place.
The real question is: will the 120 elected Members of this House improve its quality? Or will they be a mere cosmetic device or tokenism? We all have our views on that. My view is that they will diminish the quality, the independence and the perceived independence of the House. More particularly, they will introduce an alien element, as there will be 120 people with some sort of link outside to an electorate—an umbilical cord, as it were. We have heard words such as "answerability", "accountability" and so on. It will introduce a different element to the House if 120 people are here on such a ticket and the rest of the House is not. That is not a recipe for success.
Let me move to practicalities, which have not yet been mentioned today. How would elections work? How would they take place? The so-called option B—which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will recognise—is to hold elections to the House of Lords at the same time as elections to the European Parliament. I remind the House that there was a 24 per cent turnout at the last election to the European Parliament. That was the lowest in Europe and the lowest ever in any member state since elections began—if anyone wants to challenge that, the Library has given me the figures. It would be a disaster to think of linking those elections.
614
Suppose the election is on the same day as the general election. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that we deceive the people by a semblance of democracy. I shall refer to an article by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, in today's Financial Times. That is not unfair, because the noble Lord is to speak later and can demolish what I am about to say. His article states:
"If elected members are to be convincing and effective, they need to be different in character from the members of the Commons. They should be free as far as possible from subservience to party whips and from the temptation to regard the second chamber as a stepping-stone to the Commons".
Imagine the scene at a polling booth with a philosopher-king, or the noble Lord, Lord Hurd himself, standing there when a voter comes along and asks: "What am I doing today?". The answer will be: "It's the usual thing: you are electing MPs, but I must tell you that there is something extra. You are electing to the House of Lords". "Are they the same sort of thing? Are they MPs but sitting in the House of Lords?" "Well, not quite. I think I ought to tell you that they are meant to be different in character from Members of Parliament." "But how?" "Well, they are meant to be free as far as possible from subservience to the party Whips." "Does that mean to say that they do not have to take the party line on any particular issue?" "Yes, it does." "I am not sure I want to vote for those sort of people. Anyway, can I choose the order, because I recognise one name on the list at number 10?" "No, you cannot choose that. There is a list set by the party machine; you cannot make a choice." "Well, thank you very much."
As far as I am concerned, that is not a splendid exercise in democracy. If we analyse what is involved, it is not much of a recipe for the public—if they had it explained to them; I am sure that the pollsters did not give them my little spiel.
I shall quickly make two more points. This House ought not to lose its power to strike down subordinate legislation. It does so rarely, but I recall an example that struck me as especially impressive, which concerned the election of the Mayor of London. The issue was whether the argumentative prospectus issued by each candidate should be paid for and arranged by the state.
The Government said no, because it was not like a parliamentary election. It was then pointed out that the constituency was far bigger than that in a parliamentary election—between about 8 and 10 million. In the end, the House of Lords simply voted down an Order in Council that provided for the election and the Government had to give way. Eventually, a useful little booklet came round—all of us in London received it—containing addresses from 10 candidates. That is a splendid example.
There is a curiosity concerning retired Law Lords. An earlier document—the other White Paper—states:
"The retired Law Lords play a particularly distinguished role in the examination of legislation, especially that with a highly technical or legal content. Most significant is their contribution to debates on the administration of justice, penal policy and civil liberties, when law and politics intersect".

615
Paragraph 82 of Completing the Reform states:
"The Government proposes that once the reform is implemented, all those appointed as judicial members shall continue to be members of the Lords until age 75, whether or not they sit judicially. This retirement provision will replace the term appointments of the other appointed members."
So, the retired Law Lords, who, according to the first part of the document, were doing such a splendid job on various issues will be handed their retirement ticket at age 75. That should be reconsidered. I do not wish to embarrass anyone, but I was thinking particularly of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who has made the most marvellous speeches demolishing exercises in parliamentary draftsmanship and showing how such things should be done. I shall not embarrass other Law Lords by referring to them—at least one of them is present—but they have also made major contributions in their retirement. That is why it is a foolish recommendation.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I hope that the Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not think me too sad a figure when I tell him how many hours of my Christmas holiday were spent poring over his previous statements on the reform of your Lordships' House. In fact, those statements form much of the text of my speech. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take it as it is intended, as a mark of respect for what he says and how he says it.
In a recent personal interview, the noble and learned Lord said:
"You are put in this life to question, aren't you? You have to wonder why things should remain the same. Often, there's no reason why they should."
So it was that, in the name of "modernisation"—the word was used 11 times in the original White Paper—the Government embarked on the proposed changes to this House. Accordingly, during the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, the then Attorney-General said that the result would be a modern House of Lords, which was,
"better equipped to do its proper job of holding the executive to account."
When it comes to the powers and functions of the new House of Lords, the Government's Cromwellian fervour for change appears to have come to a sudden halt. Gone is the language of modernisation and change. Instead, as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil said, a new word emerged: "pre-eminence". That word is used 12 times in today's White Paper. There is also a new gospel—the primacy of the House of Commons—and a new fundamental principle, which is that
"Reform should not undermine the position of the House of Commons".
Why might that happen? The noble and learned Lord explains:
"Reform of your Lordships' House must satisfy one key condition".
What might that be? The noble and learned Lord continues:
616
"It must not alter the respective roles and authority of the two Chambers".
He goes on:
"The House of Lords should remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions".
I stress the words "should remain". The noble and learned Lord continues:
"The primary legislative powers of the House, as circumscribed by the Parliament Acts"—
I stress these words—
"should remain unchanged".
What happened to modernisation? Well, on 18th December, the noble and learned Lord explained that,
"the House of Commons is to be supreme … it must have its own way … No changes"—
I repeat—
"no changes … will be proposed".—[Official Report. 18/12/01; col. 130.]
What happened to that reforming zeal?
The Government's response to the apparently simple notion that changes in functions and powers might go along with changes in composition is blank. Nothing has changed and therefore there is no need for any change. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the Leader of the House said:
"Essentially nothing has changed that requires any modification of the Parliament Acts".—[Official Report. 24./1/01; col. 299.]
The Government have cut your Lordships' House in half, in the most dramatic change in its 600-year history. There will now be elected Members coming into your Lordships' House, all in the name of legitimacy, authority and democracy, but still the Government say that nothing has changed.
Is it too much to suggest that we are witnessing one of the most blatant pieces of political manipulation that this venerable House can ever have seen? The Government already control another place, in which they have never lost a vote. They will continue to control appointments to your Lordships' House and will gain dramatically from the replacement of 92 hereditary Members with 120 elected Members. With the Government's current poll rating, they will go from having two Members in that 92 to having 60 out of the 120, leaving the rest of us to scrabble around for the leftovers.
Several noble Lords have recently expressed the view that something has changed and that that should be reflected in the relationship between the two Houses. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said:
"The balance of power has now been disturbed … The danger of the excessive power of the executive is today the major problem of the British constitution."
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, agreed:
"Lord Hailsham described the elective dictatorship. We have that now in another place."

617
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that the Government's motive looked like,
"fear of competition from this House."
He also said:
"As this House becomes more legitimate, it should more often be heeded and more often trusted."
The response of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House was given in an uncharacteristically crisp reply at the end of the debate on the Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill which was brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, early last year. At one point, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked my noble friend Lord Kingsland whether he was,
"questioning the supremacy of the Commons".—[Official Report, 19/1/01; col. 1329.]
As a former Attorney-General, the Leader of the House will have thought carefully and with great precision about the choice of the word "supremacy". It is different from the word "primacy". I looked it up. "Supremacy" has many benign meanings that all of us would accept as descriptions of the position of the House of Commons in relation to this House, including the following: above, greater, top spot, first place, senior, top dog, top banana, have the last word, outrank, number one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, all of us accept that. However, the thesaurus gives another set of meanings for "supremacy", and here they are: omnipotent, almighty, all-powerful, absolute, unlimited, high handed, domineering, dictatorial, overbearing, heavy handed, big stick, under one's thumb, browbeat, order around, kick around, ride roughshod over.
The debate is about how Parliament will scrutinise the executive. Should not Parliament decide how it will do that, rather than having the decision made by the executive by what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde called unilateral imposition? That is what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, were driving at when they asked for a Joint Committee to examine the proposition.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said of the House of Commons that its pre-eminence—there is that word again—was protected by the Parliament Act 1911. However, the case for revisiting—if only modestly—that iconic Act has been made by two of the most distinguished Members of the House, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Donaldson of Lymington. They reminded us that examination of the preamble to the 1911 Act showed that it was intended only as an interim step. If it does not bore your Lordships, I shall tell you what it says:
;'And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it as present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation … it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords".
618
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, showed how such recitals made the Parliament Act,
"an interim measure … pending a constitutional change".
He said that the 1911 Act contained,
"the agreed terms of an armistice".—[Official Report, 19/1/01; col. 1311–12.]
The second relevant aspect of the history of the Parliament Act 1911 was the motivation behind it. The record seems to show that its raison d'être was the hereditary nature of the composition of the upper House. Commending the Parliament Bill to the House of Commons on its Second Reading, the Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, said of the hereditary principle:
"Let it not be our master. So say we. It is because it has been our master … because it enslaves and fetters the free action of this House, that we have put these proposals before the House and we mean to carry them into law".
Winston Churchill, campaigning for the Parliament Bill around the country, asked:
"Why should their children govern our children? Why should the sons and the grandsons and the great grandsons have legislative functions?".
He hoped that the Bill would be,
"fatal to the hereditary House of Lords".
The hereditary House of Lords has gone. Elected members are about to appear. Yet still the Government insist that everything should remain the same in the relationship between the Houses. The Government have judged the reform to the inch; just enough elected Members to ensure that they never lose another vote in your Lordships' House but not enough elected Members to threaten their pre-eminence in the House of Commons.
In the name of modernisation, the Prime Minister used his superior power in another place to remove what he saw as an in-built majority for his opponents in your Lordships' House. In the name of democracy, he achieved parity between the Government and Opposition Benches in your Lordships' House. But, as they say, power corrupts and so now it appears that he wants even more power. He has enough power; he should stop and if he will not, we shall stop him.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I am about to displease a large proportion of the 18 speakers who have already addressed the House and, especially, I am about to displease the Government.
Ninety years have elapsed since the country was told that your Lordships' House needed to be reformed. A great amount of thought and much debate has ensued and only in 1968 did a government get near a solution. One of the greatest difficulties to progress was that the arrangements which prevailed until 1999, and not very differently since, had worked surprisingly well, although governments of both parties were occasionally much irritated by the House upsetting their plans.
Although this Government deserve credit for grasping the nettle—indeed, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that he and the great and good

619
Willie Whitelaw had discussed the matter many times and had stumbled at the task which the Government are now grasping—they deserve little credit for the manner in which they have and are proceeding. Consensus could have been reached whereby the majority of hereditary Peers who never played a part in our work could have been induced to retire by existing mechanisms, thus clearing the way for the reform to be done in one stage. Now we are compelled to go into battle against a Prime Minister who writes in his foreword to the White Paper:
"The imperative is for a reformed second chamber performing broadly the same functions as in the existing House of Lords, but in a more effective manner".
That caused a great many of your Lordships to be displeased.
Our Annual Report and Accounts show that we are sitting longer in both number of days and hours than ever before. The state of the Bills brought to us has been so bad since the Government came into office that no fewer than 4,761 amendments needed to be made last year, surpassing the previous record number and being two and a half times the number of any previous government. I wonder whether the right honourable gentleman might ponder whether his Ministers could be induced to present their Bills to Parliament in better shape than that which prevails.
I am not alone in my disappointment with the White Paper. On the day following its publication, it received an unprecedentedly had press. Perhaps I may quote brief extracts from the five daily broadsheets of Thursday 8th November 2001. The Financial Times stated:
"The House of Lords deserves better than these intellectually thin and politically squalid proposals".
The Independent stated:
"Tony Blair and his ministers give the impression that, having set out with grandiloquent plans to modernise Britain, they have grown bored by the intricacies of our constitution. But this faltering approach, combined with a terrible lack of vision, is not good enough; their half-hearted tinkering is a betrayal of the body politic".
The Guardian, no less, stated:
"Two years ago, we called that report [the Royal Commission's] a dog's dinner. By that token, yesterday's white paper was a regurgitated one".
The Times stated:
"The charitable explanation for the White Paper on the future of the House of Lords presented yesterday is that Lord Irvine of Lairg possesses an unappreciated sense of humour. The more cynical, and alas more accurate, interpretation is that the Government has come to like the 'interim' Upper House which exists at the moment and has therefore proposed an alternative which is so shameless that it has not the slightest chance of being accepted and enacted".
The Daily Telegraph stated:
"Mr Blair has already appointed nearly 250 peers, which is thought to be the fastest rate of patronage ever. It equates to half of all Labour peers and a third of the entire membership of the Lords. Political patronage is not of itself a bad thing, but it needs to be kept within bounds. Yesterday's proposals were presented as an offer, by the Prime Minister, to reduce his powers of patronage. In fact, they will do very little to restrict political appointment to the Lords, and greatly enhance control over MLs once they are appointed. Overall, that must surely amount to an extension of the
620
power of patronage, not a reduction. In that respect, they went even further than the Wakeham report on which they are based. But then Labour's intention yesterday could hardly have been clearer; it was not to improve, or even really to reform, the Upper House but to enfeeble it".
In this age of the bonus ball, perhaps I may be allowed a final one bowled in his Monday column a few days later by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. He stated:
"This proposal has no coherent reason, no pragmatic merit, and almost everyone dislikes it".
I share the abhorrence expressed throughout all the articles from which I have quoted, but it is time to try to be constructive. My proposals will inevitably be received with derision, but that I will risk.
I suggest that the House be called the Senate. I am sure that those who become members would prefer to be senators than the insignificant ML. Half of the new House (51 per cent might sound better) would be elected and the constituencies would be the counties and unitary authorities. Each county would have the same number of senators with the exception of those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which should, as they have their own parliaments or assemblies, be entitled to only half the number of the English counties. There would of course be howls of protest from Yorkshire getting the same number as Rutland, but in the United States California has got over its fury at Rhode Island or Delaware, though I agree that the constitutional differences between ourselves and the United States prevent direct comparisons.
Three hundred elected senators would leave the same number for party life Peers and Cross-Benchers in the proportion of 30 per cent party life Peers and 20 per cent Cross-Benchers who would survive as senators. This sadly would require the cull of both groups, and the parties and Cross Benchers could decide who stayed or went, as in 1999. I would hope that those eliminated could be found from those who never or rarely turned up. They would of course retain their peerages. The cull would be conducted after the first election by the counties, so the balance which the Government sought could be achieved.
That brief outline of what is in my mind will probably have irritated a large number of your Lordships. However, I very much hope that noble Lords who are still to speak will take the opportunity to give the House the benefit of their own thoughts on the way forward. Whatever they propose is bound to be more acceptable than the White Paper.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I do not think that anyone could conceivably have been irritated by the speech to which we have just listened. On the contrary, we are more likely to find it ingenious and well worth further study.
We find ourselves on a half-way island in the middle of the river. The Government have brought us to it with some difficulty. They are now pointing us to the further shore, which is labelled complete reform and they are indicating in the White Paper a vessel on which we might voyage to that further shore. The

621
noble Lord the Lord Chancellor claimed again today that the vessel is based on a design by the Royal Commission, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Wakeham that the vessel would be rather more seaworthy if that claim were true.
I thoroughly enjoyed serving on the Royal Commission, not least because of the skill with which it was led by my noble friend, but also because we did the rounds of the country. We read a great deal of paper, received a great many letters and conducted a series of small debates throughout the country. I formed a clear view, which I have not changed, about what people in this country really want in a second Chamber. They are clear about wanting an elected Chamber, provided that there are no wretched politicians in it. That is not a realistic vision, but we must take careful account of both its elements.
In the work that my party did under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern on the Royal Commission, I always argued for a substantial minority of a directly elected element in this House. I shall not go into all the reasons for that, but I believe that it would be strengthening, which is needed. We have our occasional triumphs. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which has been referred to several times today, was a triumph of our system working, but that does not entitle us to be satisfied day in and day out by our effectiveness. We deceive ourselves if we are so satisfied. We should always be trying to find ways of strengthening the system and I believe that an elected minority would do that.
However, it would have to be different. The article in the Financial Times today, to which the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, was kind enough to refer, was not so much a defence of the elected principle but a warning to the Government that they were mucking it up. The Royal Commission suggested three specific safeguards against the danger that elected Members of this House would be clones or poor shadows of Members of the House of Commons. Most of us favoured the open list. We couched it in Royal Commission language, but it is plainly there for anyone who cares to read it. Most of us did not believe that the closed-list system was acceptable. We favoured a long period—around 15 years—so that those elected were not constantly consulting the Whips or worrying about the state of opinion in their constituencies. We favoured effective discouragement of any attempt to use elected membership of this House as a springboard for membership of the House of Commons.
Those three substantial safeguards were neglected—indeed, discarded—by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider those safeguards because without them the case for elected membership is greatly weakened. Many of your Lordships are worried about a hybrid House. That issue has surfaced at least twice in this debate. We are worried about the impact on all our relationships and ways of doing things by the arrival of even a minority of elected Members. The case for that would be stronger if we were
622
homogeneous now, but we are a very mixed lot. We come through all kinds of channels; for example, through distinguished legal careers, from positions of senior bishops of the established Church, as life Peers or as hereditary Peers, fortified—if that is the right word—by a process of election. Each of us brings a particular kind of authority which is useful to the House. Each of us has continuing connections of different kinds with the outside world, and thank heaven for that.
I have been struck by the number of formidable Members of this House. They are people whom I have learned to respect for the force, vigour and effectiveness of their utterances. They tend to cluster behind these Benches and are the ones who are the most convinced that they will be bullied and swamped by the arrival of even a single elected Member. These particularly powerful Members of our House seem to be the ones who are most fearful of this development, although I do not share those fears.
Those who believe, as I do, that there should be a majority of nominated Members of the House realise that we are up against it in terms of the argument. I am not talking about the argument in this House. Anyone listening to this debate, discussing the matter in the Tea Room or reading Hansard will know that there is a strong majority in the House against election and overwhelmingly in favour of nomination. But we are up against it. That is true of the political parties. I look forward with excitement to the announcement that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said would be made in the next few days about my party's policy. I study the opinions and research; I occasionally read the newspapers, although that is not a popular thing to do in this House; and I listen to what is happening down the road. We are up against it and must search for reasons that are valid outside this Chamber for supporting a high degree of nomination.
My noble friend Lord Renton put his finger on the right argument when he spoke of experience of life outside politics. He recalled a time when both Houses of Parliament had a substantial asset in the form of many Members who spoke out of continuing experience of practical life outside the world of politics. My noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley referred to his mother, so I shall refer briefly to my father. He served as a Member of Parliament for 19 years, but throughout that time he was a farmer first and a politician second. He spoke about agriculture, but listened on every other subject. By contrast, a few weeks ago the leader of my party appointed Mr Clifton-Brown, the Member of Parliament for Cotswold, to be a junior shadow spokesman on agriculture. That was not a sensational development, except for Mr Clifton-Brown. However, there were immediate grumbles, mutterings, long letters and consultations, resulting in the Member of the other place stepping down. He had to withdraw from his promotion. Why? What was his offence? What sleaze or potential scandal was involved? The reason was that he was, and had always declared himself openly to be,

623
a practising farmer. His offence was that he knew in the real world about the subject on which lie was asked to speak.
I might not have related that absurd story had it not been that we have the benefit in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, who now presides over the Commission on Standards on Public Life. He did not invent the muddle and cannot be blamed for it in any way, but I look forward to reading his article in the Financial Times or elsewhere, at a time of his choosing, about how he proposes to sort it out. We cannot do anything about that matter in this House, but it leaves a serious gap in the parliamentary system, as my noble friend pointed out. There is a lack of people who come with practical and up-to-date experience of the world outside politics.
Many of us have experience, but—I must put this very delicately, though it applies to myself as much as to others—our experience tends to ebb a little. Things change and we do not always perceive those changes. There is always a danger that we shall make speeches which are wholly accurate about a situation that we knew so well 15 or 20 years ago, but which may not be entirely apt now. That is why we placed much emphasis in the report on the proposal that there should be space in this House for part-time Members, who would have to he nominated. Such Members would not be here all the time. But, when they came, they would take part in our debates and contribute something out of their own up-to-date personal authority to the matters of importance to the nation being discussed. They would be able to speak and bring to our discussions their up-to-date authority on practical life.
In my view, that development is crucially important for the health of our Parliament. It is a great pity because, as with elections, so with nominations: there is a danger—and I use an un-parliamentary phrase—that the Government are "mucking it up". They are spoiling a good case on nomination by insisting on clawing back what we on the Royal Commission suggested that they should give up; namely, the power to nominate the Members of this House who belong to political parties. I hope that the Government will study carefully the very subtle points made by my noble friend Lord Wakeham on this point as regards the actual convenience for the party managers of having an appointments commission that has the final say in this respect. Unless they are willing to concede on that point, I believe that they will seriously weaken the uphill argument on the question of nomination.
Like my noble friend Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the Royal Commission, I believe that we would be unwise to set sail in this vessel in its present form to the further shore. The Government must set to and repair her substantially. Although I listened carefully, I did not detect very much indication from the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he has his tools ready for that purpose. Either this will be a substantial repair job, or noble Lords will have to be ready to camp for some time on our halfway island in the middle of the river and try to make it as comfortable and as effective as possible.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, with 82 speakers—42 of whom will speak today—I shall, out of fairness to other noble Lords, especially those who have to change for official dinners, be even more subliminal than usual. But I should just like to put my toe into the water. With all the endless talk that there has been, and some unhappy actions, too, over the past few years about the reform of your Lordships' House, it seems to me that most people have been looking at the subject the wrong way round, like peering down a telescope the wrong way, or the Rock of Gibraltar, which is in fact upside down.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, got it right. If we are to preserve your Lordships' House—I very much hope that we shall—we must look very closely at what its functions are. As I see it, its functions are threefold, the first being to provide a very thorough screening process for legislation. I have before now described this function as being like a high-class sewage filter, filtering through untreated legislation from the other place, to make it workable in the country. This I believe to be its most important function; associated with it there is also the power of delay, of making the other place think again. Over the anti-terrorist Bill last year we had a very significant example of this. We all wanted an immediate antiterrorist Bill. We all supported the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but we did not want it overloaded trailing strings of unattended consequences, which would only cause future difficulties. The other place did have a chance to think again, and, with great wisdom, took it.
The second function is the absolute power of causing any government, whatever, to hold a democratic election after five years. It is possible, as happened in the last election, for the same party to be returned with a greater majority. This is democracy in action, and how the people have chosen. It is very important that they should always keep that choice. Our third function is in our debates, and in the dissemination of wisdom. We are proud to have among your Lordships so many wise, experienced and knowledgeable people on so many subjects, to whom it is always a pleasure to listen.
We have been concentrating on how or why we are here, and not on what we are here for. Over the past few years your Lordships, who are all Peers, and, therefore, in your essence, all equals, have been treated like pigs in Animal Farm with some more equal than others. Some of us have been created Peers through our own past services to the country, through politics, or the services, through the law, or the medical profession, or the Civil Service; some of us have supported financially a political party; some of us have powerful friends; and some of us have ancestors who came into one or other of those categories, and inherited through them. But we are all here, for whatever reason, to contribute to the work and the glory of this House.
My youngest grandson, Tay, particularly likes the stars in the blue vaults at the top of the Peers' staircase. He always looks for them. It seems to me that your

625
Lordships are rather like the stars. Why or how they got out into space does not seem to me to matter, it is rather like worrying about infinity in the middle of the night. It is what stars do that matters. Stars are the navigation lights of the sailor on the dark seas, they are the goal of the Three Wise Men, they are the map by which migrating birds find their way home, and they give light in our darkness and hope to the hopeless. We all need the stars.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow such a wonderfully elliptical speech. We have to start with the principles on which we should judge a reform. The first must be that the composition of the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, just said, must relate to its functions and powers and not be discussed separately. Secondly, the role of the second Chamber must clearly relate to that of the first Chamber, so we have to consider the reform of Parliament as a whole and not the two Houses separately. Thirdly—here I agree very strongly with what my noble friend Lady Williams, said in her opening speech—we must recognise the low esteem of Parliament at present and seek reform that will contribute to increasing the credibility and legitimacy of Parliament as a whole, and not simply attempt changes that will satisfy the current balance within both Chambers.
The fourth principle—namely, the supremacy of the House of Commons, to which so much importance is given in this White Paper—is, in part, a self-serving myth. I note that paragraph 13 of the document says:
"The United Kingdom is a Parliamentary democracy. Sovereignty rests with the Crown in Parliament".
Paragraph 14 continues to say:
"In practice, the powers of the three parts are uneven".
In reality, it is the power of the Crown rather than the efficiency of the legislature in checking the power of the Crown which is dominant. It is the executive which is supreme, using the authority of the Crown and exploiting our half-closed electoral system and the over-extensive patronage of government appointments to control the Commons. The underlying argument in this White Paper is to maintain the established imbalance between Crown and Parliament, not to address the question of how we might have a more democratic and modern form of government. "Modernisation" used to be a term much used when this Government came into power, but they seem now to have forgotten about it.
Fifthly, Members of the other place should, therefore, approach the topic of House of Lords reform with a degree of humility. The aggressively partisan style of the elected Chamber is largely responsible for the decline in public respect for Parliament. It offers a two-party battle between an all-powerful government and a highly privileged and entrenched Official Opposition in which MPs of the governing party see their role as unconditionally supporting the Government's control of the agenda
626
and the outcome, and resisting all reasoned criticism from the Opposition. That no longer corresponds to the diversity of opinions held in this country or to the real needs of modern government.
Sixthly, I suggest that in any reform of Parliament, the aim should be to move the style of debate and scrutiny towards the spirit of compromise, sometimes exaggerated co-operation and attention to reasoned criticism which characterise this Chamber rather than towards the partisanship which disfigures the other place.
I should like to make one major point about why the two Chambers behave differently. This Chamber has an effective four-party system with no overall control. Therefore we are forced, eventually, to compromise with each other. That is part of the reason why we operate differently. By all those standards, the proposals before us are astonishingly timid and limited.
Perhaps I may say a little about the functions of a second Chamber because they form an important part of the debate. Shortly after I came to this place I was privileged to serve as the chairman of one of the subcommittees of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union. I found that to be a fascinating learning experience. What I discovered was the politics of influence rather than of power. The extent to which committees enable us to hold reasoned debate among ourselves, to interact with interested and informed lobbies outside and with those nongovernmental organisations which form the organised representatives of civil society, and so contribute in a pre-legislative role to informed discussion, education and debate, and in a post-legislative role to scrutiny, thus ensuring that Ministers can stand up to sustained questioning and that officials can manage to justify what they have done, is considerable. Most important, that is what politics needs to be about; it is not about power but it is certainly about real influence.
When discussing issues with officials and Ministers both outside the committee as well as inside the committee, I learnt a great deal about the necessity of maintaining that kind of dialogue. To that end, I should say that I was impressed by the officials and the Ministers with whom I dealt. We need to expand that dimension of the second Chamber. Perhaps less time should be spent on the Floor of the House and more off the Floor. Furthermore, I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Williams when she referred to expanding the committee system to cope with the broader internationalisation of government as a whole. We do have quite effective scrutiny of the European Parliament in this House, but we do not look at treaties, we do not look at UN agencies and we do not consider the other international commitments which crowd in on the British and all other governments, however proudly they might wish to protect their sovereignty.
Again, much could be done that would not interfere with international organisations, but which could make a valuable contribution to the need to raise issues of public concern and, therefore, usefully to influence

627
public debate. All that might lead to a stronger second Chamber—and why not? Politics should comprise a dialogue and a constant search for acceptable compromise, a process of discovery and learning; it should not comprise the unalterable position of government proposals. That would make for a stronger Parliament as a whole.
Part of the mistaken emphasis of the White Paper is the notion of tensions between the House of Commons and the House of Lords rather than between the executive and the legislature. What we ought to seek is stronger legislative control of the executive, stronger scrutiny, accountability and debate, which in turn ought to put both Chambers of Parliament on the same side.
I turn now to the question of composition. First, election itself is not that much worse than appointment. As I look around the Benches, I see that a high proportion of the current Members of this Chamber have stood for election during their careers. I count myself among them, having stood five times. Perhaps I may humbly suggest that that in itself is an argument against those who say that if there were to be a substantial proportion of elected Members, no one of substance would stand. If one holds to that opinion, then that would cut out a large proportion of the House as people of no substance.
The second argument I have heard muttered is that if we put in place a regional basis for election, it would lead to an incursion of superannuated county councillors. One of the first lessons I learnt on joining this Chamber was that among the most valuable and hardworking Members of the House were a collection of people from all three of the parties represented here of precisely that background—superannuated county councillors. They are immensely valuable, they are conscientious and they bring to the House their experience and knowledge of issues such as education, transport, policing, social services and planning. Furthermore, as a Labour Member of the House remarked to me earlier today outside the Chamber, they bring to this place the valuable experience of having had to co-operate with other parties in situations where councils do not have overall control. They can appreciate a rather different style of politics from that which is the norm in the other place.
A great deal depends on the electoral system chosen. Our current electoral system is a prime source of popular disillusionment with politics. For the majority of seats in the House of Commons, before the election is even held one knows who is going to be elected. As I went around the country helping my own party during the last general election, what most struck me was that the campaign was being fought in fewer than 200 seats. In one constituency, all three parties put up posters all over the place and canvassed widely, while in another constituency one would not have known that a general election had been called. That is part of the reason why the turn-out in so many seats went down.
If we are to choose an electoral system for this Chamber, then closed lists surely provide the worst alternative, given that the aim is to promote a degree
628
of independence and diversity. We should all make it clear to the Government that if they stick to that aspect of their proposals, they will deserve to fail. One might consider, for example, the Irish electoral system, which promotes looser parties and even allows for a number of mavericks to come in. Earlier it was suggested that no independent would ever get elected, but I recall that we have just seen an election which brought forward an independent Mayor of London and in which the major party nominees did not succeed. A number of Green representatives have been elected to the Greater London Authority, even under a closed list system. That is highly desirable since it recognises the diversity of popular opinion. Representation by the more minor parties, even single-issue parties, in this Chamber might actually help a greater proportion of the people in this country to feel that they are being more widely represented. The Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes and the Norwegians cope relatively well with parliaments containing representatives from six to eight parties. That reflects a civilised form of government which we should not necessarily reject.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, suggested that constituency responsibilities of any kind would detract from this House. I venture to suggest that those of us who have sonic regional base in politics and try to maintain it do in fact contribute to the value of the House. After having taken part nine months ago in a debate on the chaos at Leeds station, yesterday morning I gave a fourth interview to Radio Leeds. That demonstrates how one's activities in this House feed back into local politics. Regional ties provide a valuable element of diversity to bring to the House.
Of course we shall need to have sufficiently long terms for elected Members, nine years or perhaps even 15 years, to ensure that there would be a degree of distance from the electorate. Perhaps, along the lines of the US Senate and others, we should have a minimum age for candidates in order to guard against the House being used as a stepping stone to the Commons. At this point perhaps I may also mention one of the taboos of the debate; at some stage we might wish to suggest a maximum age limit, or term limits even for appointees.
I would also suggest that a mixed Chamber of appointees and elected Members is quite thinkable because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, pointed out, we have been mixed for a long time. The idea that a "hyphenated hybrid" would be new and unworkable, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, is nonsense. I recall a Conservative colleague telling me that during the debate on the first stage of reform of the House, Conservative hereditary Peers used to refer to Conservative appointees as "day boys"—with all the patronage that anyone who has attended a public school will know that term implies. That is a two-class system for you.
We also have Members who were former Members of Parliament and there are those of us who have not been MPs. Former MPs have some interesting privileges, in particular at the other end of the

629
corridor. We have party members and Cross-Benchers. We can manage a mixed House in a normal and practical way.
One of the most important issues, however—and again I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—is whether we remain a part-time Chamber or become a full-time Chamber. Part-time status has strong advantages, but the current drift towards a full-time commitment is clear. If the suggestions that we read in the newspapers from the Leader of the House about morning Sessions and sitting in September are accurate, that would make this Chamber more of a full-time commitment. It would also require that it becomes a salaried Chamber. I would strongly resist becoming a full-time House. But we are drifting towards that and we should seek to reverse the trend.
I have taken up too much time, for which I apologise. Perhaps I may therefore summarise rapidly. We have a basis for consensus in what I would like to call the "Richard compromise"—that is, that we should move towards a House which would be, roughly, two-thirds elected and one-third non-elected. If we were to take 120 the first time, another 120 five years later and another 120 after that, we could think about a House of 540 members—180 nominated and 360 elected.
There must be consultation among the parties on this—and soon. We await the Government's proposal that they will be consulting with all other parties. The outcome of all this might be a stronger second Chamber, to which the Government and the other place would have to listen and as regards which they would have to recognise its influence and even, perhaps, share a little of their power. That would mark a constructive reform of Parliament and a great improvement in the style of British politics and government.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I start with an apology for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Having put my name down to speak tomorrow, I was somewhat taken aback to find my name down to speak at a relatively early hour today. I have therefore the disadvantage or advantage—whichever way one may care to look at it—of not having prepared as well-crafted a speech as that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and many other noble Lords who have spoken today. However, it does give me the opportunity to make certain remarks based on personal impressions and in the light of what I have listened to today.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and many other noble Lords have pointed out, the starting point is the purpose of the House and its functions. We need to keep in mind that aspect when we look at the individual proposals in the White Paper.
More and more we need to perform within the constitution those parts of its role that another place has increasingly come to neglect. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, mentioned a point which is well known
630
to all of us—that is, that the condition of the legislation arriving in your Lordships' House is less and less satisfactory. Bills have been less carefully prepared, more amendments are necessary and. Therefore, more amendments have to be incorporated at a later stage during the passage of a Bill. Under those circumstances, the Bill as a whole cannot be seen in the round until a relatively late stage in the process. Your Lordships are frequently called upon to deal with major changes to legislation at a late stage. One wonders sometimes whether another place is trying to exercise any serious detailed scrutiny of much of the legislation coming through Parliament.
So we need to ask ourselves whether any proposals for change in the composition of your Lordships' House are likely to enable it to carry out its important roles more successfully than it does at present. If one looks at some of the main elements, it is not at all clear that these proposals are likely to lead to more effective scrutiny and deliberation than the present structure of the House.
Of course we need to ensure that the membership of this House includes those elements which are increasingly lacking in the membership of another place. In his article and in his speech today, my noble friend Lord Hurd referred to the Clifton-Brown affair. It seems to me to be the ultimate absurdity that you may speak with responsibility in Parliament on anything as long as you do not know anything about it. From observing the way in which much legislation is now processed, some noble Lords may have come to the conclusion that that is happening already.
When I was a Member of the other place in the 1980s, I had the responsibility in the Treasury for taking through the House a number of Bills on financial institutions—the banking Bill, trustee savings banks and building society legislation and so on. The only reason that I was asked to do that was because I had spent several years before arriving at Westminster as a banker and working for and among financial institutions. It is absolutely crazy that another place, which is increasingly short of people with practical experience of the world outside, should now be in a position where those who do know something from their own experience are, in effect, precluded from making the contribution that they are best qualified to make. It is such a nonsense. I hope that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hurd and the publicity that he has given to this case will ensure that the matter is thoroughly reconsidered.
When one looks at the party element of the proposals for future membership of the House, one has to ask whether they are likely to increase party control in detail over the membership of the House which represents those parties. Because of the mathematical scheme embodied in these proposals and the closed list system proposed for elected Members, there is likely to be an even greater emphasis by the political parties on trying to ensure that those who come here will be regular attenders, very loyal, show the minimum amount of independence of mind, and, in their contributions, stick very closely to the collective position that their party represents.

631
That is all very well from one point of view—it deals with part of the democratic element—but it does not coincide with the way in which the House currently works and which has generally been found to be fairly satisfactory, if it changes the nature of the membership in relation to party affiliation, the way in which the commission process and the appointments system would work is likely to move us further away from the mix of contributions which we currently enjoy in your Lordships' House. Priorities of party are likely to become increasingly important and to impose on the system—I hope in only a small way—more of what has happened down the corridor, which is that fewer and fewer Members of another place have serious experience of the world outside or the opportunity for robust independence within the framework of their party commitments. That would be a great pity.
When one looks at the elected element, the debate about numbers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others have referred, is a little metaphysical. The question is whether such an element is likely to change the way in which your Lordships' House works. If so, is it likely to be for the better? I have strong reservations about this, as have a number of other noble Lords who have spoken. It is crucial that the safeguards proposed by the Royal Commission are built into the system. The key point is whether or not those who might come here as elected Members would be open to re-election. That would change the conduct of any Member of this House.
I well remember when broadcasting was introduced into another place and when "Today in Parliament" began using live inserts from speeches. It changed the way in which Members of another place conducted themselves, and indeed what they said. I was becoming pretty cheesed off by my constituents saying that they never heard me on the programme, so I deliberately changed my way of doing things. I began to include in every speech two or three sentences with more colourful language and one or two racier ideas—and lo and behold, they were reported.
This is not a fanciful angle. I am sure that if Members of this House were subject to re-election, they would be hound by human nature to want to play to their constituency in order to be better known, in order to encourage support and to have a better chance of being re-elected. That is why the Royal Commission proposal for a long period of appointment, not followed by re-election, is so important. Otherwise, we should find that this House was increasingly being used in the way in which, inevitably, another place is used by elected Members of Parliament, for their personal needs in terms of re-election. That would not be suitable or compatible with the functions that we perform—and which, it is generally agreed, we ought to continue to perform.
We must regard with some scepticism the idea of an enormous public wish—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—for a large elected element, and the idea that it is the only thing that would "put us on the map". I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Hurd, when he went round the country picking up comments as to how we went about our work and what
632
it should consist of, asked any members of the public how they thought we had handled the Financial Services and Markets Bill, with hundreds of amendments at every moment. I wonder whether a large elected element would enable us to continue to do that kind of thing. I very much doubt it.
I should prefer, like the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and others, not to have an elected element. That is not because I believe that elected people lack ability or the opportunity to make contributions—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said, one can point to many examples. I merely think that it would change the process of our work in this House in a way that would take us away from the essential functions that we have up to now been trying to fulfil.
Even if the White Paper is not—as the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, said—a deliberate nonsense in order to ensure that the Bill, when it comes, will fail, it is a hotchpotch of individual ideas which seem to have been added one by one in order to make a how in the direction of a number of quarters who have different and often conflicting objectives. The hotchpotch does not add up to a coherent whole. For my part, I need a lot of persuading that they would amount to an improvement on the status quo.
7.54 p.m
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who was chairman of the Royal Commission, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, I too was a member, along with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the Cross Benches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who is not present. Therefore, I declare an interest.
I am the 24th speaker in this debate, and the White Paper has not found one friend among those who have contributed. The Government must take note of that, whether they want to or not.
I congratulate the Government on picking up this issue some two years to the month after the Royal Commission reported directly to the Prime Minister. The issue of House of Lords reform has been a poisoned chalice for governments over the past 90-odd years. Indeed, the previous attempt to reform this House took place 33 years ago, when it fell as a result of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in another place coming together. My fear is that the White Paper is drawn in such a way that this attempt could suffer the same fate. It would be a tremendous opportunity lost. Therefore, I hope that the Government—although I note that neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Leader of the House is in his place—are prepared to listen and to make amendments.
The report of the Wakeham commission, as it became known, contained 128 recommendations. The Government must be congratulated on accepting the majority of them. The recommendation about ensuring a more equal balance as between men and women Members of this House is self-evidently necessary. Perhaps even more self-evidently necessary is a balance reflecting the ethnic communities in our diverse society in Britain.

633
A further recommendation is that an overall guarantee should be written in, so that in the future no one party, in or out of government, will have sufficient members to dominate this House and recommendations relate to the independent element. I hope that I am not nit-picking, but the Wakeham report stated that "at least" 20 per cent of the Members of this House should be independent; the White Paper uses the words, "about 20 per cent". The Independent Members of this House may well want to examine that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, rightly mentioned, as did our eminent chairman, that the members of the Royal Commission were a mixed bunch. We were. We came to the issues before us from very different standpoints. We decided early on that we could all stand by our principles and our strong points, and that we should end up with a report that would probably gather dust on the shelves like any other. We quickly decided that we had to work together to examine the issues and see where we could achieve consensus. It is a great credit to the chairman of the commission that the report does achieve a consensus. It will not suit everyone, but at least it is a working document which will enable reform of this House to take place.
We decided also—a point that has not been directly touched on in the debate—that reform of this House is not the property of this House; nor is it the property of the House down the corridor. It is a matter in which the people of this nation have a vested interest.
We had just 10 months to do our work, and we "went on the road". We had 21 meetings up and down the country, including in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We received 1,700 pieces of evidence. As this is a complex situation with no simple answers, the report delivered to the Government was one that was knitted together rather like a jigsaw puzzle, in the sense that one part related to the other. Once you start messing about with the principal component parts, the rest of the proposals are severely damaged.
I suggest that that is what the White Paper has done. It has undermined an overall recommendation which, with some amendment through consensus, may have found the way forward. It is for those reasons that I cannot support the White Paper. Indeed, if there is any consensus today it is from the three members of the Royal Commission who have spoken so far, from different sides of the House.
There are two key areas. The issues of the appointments commission and the composition of the House, although separate, are clearly interlinked. I greatly welcome the provision in the White Paper of a new statutory appointments commission that will be responsible for appointing the independent members. However, the proposals in the White Paper are a long way from what the Wakeham report suggested.
There has been a lot of talk today about elections. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, rightly drew some laughter in the House when he pointed out that in our meetings members of the public said that they wanted elected Members in the House of Lords. We asked
634
them what they meant by that, although not about the detailed process. They did not like indirect election—I have yet to find someone who does. However, they did not want the political parties replicating in this House what was happening down the corridor. Although they, and probably many Members in the House down the corridor, do not know how this House works, they knew that they did not want two Houses that were constituted in the same way, with the same powers. They accepted that the House of Commons was the House that was elected by the people every five years at the most. They wanted the House of Lords to be different. They wanted elected members. There was no consensus about the number—perhaps 20, 30 or 50 per cent—but there was a strong consensus that the political parties should not control the House. There was a lot of positive support when we explained that part of our remit was that no one party should have control of the House.
The report's recommendation that the appointments commission should appoint all appointed Members was clearly thought through. We know the difficulties with the Whip. A party cannot be forced to give a Whip to a Member that someone else has appointed. We were conscious that our report would have to be the basis for primary legislation. Those details could be discussed within that legislation. The problem can be dealt with in a number of ways.
With my background, having stood in election after election throughout my life and taken the view that when I was elected I was accountable to the people who had elected me—I think that that is the right approach—I initially felt that we would probably end up with a recommendation for an elected House. However, I changed my opinion as the work of the commission proceeded. I support the presence of elected Members. I support Model B set out in the report, although it is not written in tablets of stone. However, a wholly elected House, as some in the media and elsewhere have called for, is not the answer. There is no simple answer. Just electing everybody will not solve the problems. However, I sincerely believe that there has to be an elected element. That may not suit everybody in this House. There may be a majority opposed to the idea in this House, but we have to take note of what the public expect.
Elections have not served women or ethnic minorities very well down the corridor. In recommending elections, we also had to take account of the fact that someone elected at the same time as a Member of the House of Commons would immediately become part of the political process. They would campaign and watch their every step. They would be under the Whip and may be threatened with deselection if they expressed an independent point of view in this House. We all know that that is how party politics works. The challenge was to devise a system of delivering elected Members but ensuring that they have the ability to be as independent as possible and do not use this House as a stepping stone to becoming an MP or challenging their local MP. That is why we

635
suggested the provision for 15-year terms and a 10-year delay before Members could stand for election to the House of Commons. That is how the proposals on elections knit together. Without those proposals, the nature of the House would be changed. It is and should remain a revising and scrutinising House.
I am particularly concerned about those two key elements. Movement is needed on them. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say today that the Government would listen.
However, there are other issues. The role, powers and functions of the House was the first area that the Royal Commission looked at. One third of the report—paragraphs 7 to 19—covers the role, powers and functions of the House. If you do not know clearly what they are, you cannot legitimately move on to deal with the composition. I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on 7th November, when the Statement on the White Paper was made, that we need to look at functions.
I was terribly disappointed to see that the White Paper had just one page on the role of the House and two pages on its functions. I was even more disappointed to read paragraph 24, which says:
"There is no case for giving specific new functions to the House of Lords. The Government agrees with the Royal Commission that there is a role for the House of Lords in reviewing the impact of constitutional reform".
Having accepted that, the White Paper goes on to say:
"But this is something which should develop within the existing constitutional framework".
In a way, that almost dismisses the argument.
Recommendations 19 and 20 deal with the authority of this House to veto a Bill from the other place to extend the life of Parliament. That idea was not rejected at any of our meetings and no politician who gave us evidence and was confronted with that question challenged it either. That is why the Wakeham report calls for an amendment to the Parliament Act to that effect. There is no specific reference in the White Paper to those two recommendations. I should have thought that they were an extremely important aspect of the powers of this House.
Last year, the Labour Government were re-elected on another landslide. Obviously I am delighted about that. In the manifesto, the party reconfirmed its support for the Wakeham report and the conclusions of the commission. It went on to say that a Labour Government would implement them,
"in the most effective way possible".
It grieves me to say that the White Paper does not meet in full that manifesto commitment. It does not implement the recommendations of the Wakeham report in the most effective way.
In conclusion, some Members of this House have said in the margins—some have implied it in the debate, directly or indirectly—that the House should be left as it is. That is not how the matter was left with the exclusion of the hereditary Peers. We have unfinished business. This House has to go to the next
636
stage of reform. Neither do I agree with the idea of "completing the reform". One reason why we are in this situation is that we have never revisited reforming this House. We need to do that every 15 or 20 years. When the Government of the day tried to do so 33 years ago, they were knocked back.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Government were willing to listen. As he said, we all know that we shall not achieve unanimity, but we need proposals around which we can secure a sizeable consensus. The report may need amending, but we should not kick away the stool and abandon the principles on which the report was built. The biggest tragedy of all would be a stalemate, brought about by those at either end of the spectrum, that left matters as they are—as unfinished business. People are ready for reform. I was heartened to hear the Leader of the House say on 4th December:
"the White Paper is very green".—[Official Report. 4/12/01; col.706.]
I look to the Government to carry that out.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at the beginning of her most interesting contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, declared an interest. I suppose that, as an hereditary Peer, I too should declare an interest because we are discussing proposals for the attainder of my membership of this House. If anyone can be said to have a non-pecuniary interest in the debate, I am sure that it is me. I also hope that, under the so-called Clifton-Brown doctrine, I am allowed to speak about the issue. As my noble friend Lord Hurd was speaking, it occurred to me that, if the logic of that proposition were taken to its extreme, we would be unable to conduct this debate at all.
I have expressed my general views about reform of the second Chamber and do not propose to repeat them now. Although I suppose that it is trite to say that fact is stranger than fiction, the case of House of Lords reform must surely fall into that category. Let us go back just to 1997, when the Labour Government came in with a manifesto commitment to remove the hereditary Members of the second Chamber, all of whom were there for life. After all, it was argued—and I do not disagree—it was no longer appropriate for hereditary peerage to be sufficient to confer a seat in Parliament. I make it quite clear that I do not subscribe to the idea that the legal right to legislate should be a piece of entailed heritable property.
So out they went, except for the so-called 92 elected hereditaries, of whom I am lucky enough to he one, who would remain until the reformed Chamber was put in place—not until the next stage of the reform was reached. The Government then sucked their teeth. By 2001, they concluded that a life peerage, just like an hereditary peerage, is not an appropriate basis for membership of the second Chamber. So what do they do? No, they do not expel them as well; rather, because a life peerage endures for life, they will remain for the rest of their days.

637
Having been in politics for a number of years, I no longer expect consistency or logic. However, the way in which this particular project is evolving, we are in danger of going down the rabbit's hole to Wonderland if we do not recognise that, basically, it is a fix—or, to use a word that the Lord Chancellor used in his opening, a compromise. In this case, it is a compromise made with himself to achieve consensus.
It seems extraordinary that there is an historical precedent for all this. In late 1648, when Colonel Pride purged the House of Commons to leave the Rump, he did much the same to the House of Commons as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, did to the House of Lords in 1999. Yours Lordships will recall that that Rump soldiered on until the end of the following decade, between bouts of failed electoral reform and government experiment. On balance, although I think that the 1650s was a remarkable decade in British history, it is not a glorious chapter in the history of Parliament or parliamentary democracy. It seems that it should be an example of what not to do, and not a precedent.
I should like now to confine my remarks to two general points. The first, which touches on some remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is to suggest that the proposals for a revised form for the second Chamber have been formulated in the wrong way. Apparently an attempt is being made to find a way of devising a second Chamber as a convocation of the "great and good", however one might define it. However, sufficient time has not been spent trying to analyse how the new Chamber will perform its functions. Only when one is clear about how to achieve an objective can one work out how best to find appropriate, good and competent people to contribute to achieving that objective.
Secondly, I should like to share some thoughts on regional constituencies, of which, as one of the three MEP Members of your Lordships' House, 1 have some direct electoral experience.
As we all know, there has been considerable debate about the composition of the second Chamber, but, as has already been mentioned, there has not been much discussion about how it will perform the tasks assigned to it. One point on which there is widespread agreement is that the House should take a lead in scrutinising European Union matters. Interestingly, that topic has recently been considered in some detail in the document published before Christmas by the Select Committee on the European Union, on whether a European Union Senate comprising Members of national Parliaments might be a desirable development. Its conclusion, which I am glad to say is in line with the evidence that I gave to the Committee, and the likely conclusion of the European Parliament, is that it would not be a desirable development.
What is required is greater scrutiny and accountability of member state governments to national Parliaments in respect of actions and decisions taken by those governments off the Floor of the House. In a rapidly globalising world, which is
638
increasingly politically and economically interdependent, less and less policy and legislation will be made on the Floor of the House of any Parliament; rather, Parliaments' scrutinising function will become increasingly important. How are we going to do that? Who are the right type of people to do it? How much time will it take? How much preparatory paperwork will be required? How much travelling, both internationally and domestically, will be needed? How much research and support will be needed? Precisely the same considerations will apply in other spheres in which a second Chamber plays a big role.
It is terribly important that we have reasonably clear answers to those types of question before deciding the composition of the reformed House. It is highly unlikely in practice that "the very great and very good" will want to come in day after day to perform relatively important but perhaps somewhat repetitious work. I suspect, conversely, that the views of people who are willing to work in that manner might be of much less value and carry much less authority when discussing great matters of state.
Until we are clear in our minds about how Parliaments in general will work in the 21st century—in this I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—we cannot really be sure how the House of Lords itself should function as part of a 21st century UK Parliament. If the second Chamber is not going to be elected or predominantly elected, which the White Paper seems to reject, the Pandora's box of alternative possibilities is open, as we have seen in this debate, and an almost limitless number of permutations can be debated. I suppose that the only consolation of opening Pandora's box is that Hope is at the bottom. In many things in life there is a distinct link between form and function, and I believe that this is one of them.
The Government's proposals include the suggestion that there should be regional representation along the lines adopted at the last European elections. As leader of the Conservative MEPs in the North West, and as the first candidate from the North West to have been elected in the last Euro-elections, 1 have —although I am not sure whether it is despite or because of being an hereditary Peer—some first-hand experience of the system, and there are a number of comments that I should like to make.
Unlike Scotland and Wales, which are historically homogenous, English regions are not homogenous. In my own case, and I speak as a Cumbrian, there are very serious misgivings about the north-west region as currently constituted. Those misgivings have been echoed by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. As one who is a supporter of devolution and wants more decisions to be taken out of London, I am concerned about what is happening and what might be proposed for England.
It is also my opinion, which I believe is shared by my fellow MEPs of all parties—we have obviously discussed these issues between us—that there are considerable difficulties in establishing satisfactory relationships in our constituencies with the media,

639
MPs, local government, the political parties and the electorate as a whole. I think that that is unsatisfactory for both the elected and the electorate.
I believe that regionally elected Members will, when all their constituency work is taken into account, be full time. I also think that, if they are full time, they will have to be paid. I say that for the very simple reason that one cannot be part time if one has no other time to work. Allowances cover expenses; they do not cover the necessary infrastructure of life such as housing, clothing, insurance and pensions. We are urged to take out private pensions by the Government in order not to be a drain on the state. Allowances will not cover private pensions, among other things, and they do not cover a whole range of expenses, such as "keeping shirts on the bairns' backs". If we have a full-time activity, we cannot go out and earn in any other time the necessary money to deal with those aspects of life.
It is my view that, de facto, it is now extremely hard to participate in the business of this House if one happens to be based outside London unless one is either a pensioner or is very rich. In fact that has had a significant effect on the impact that I might call "out of London" has made in this House. It is simply not possible to get regionally elected Members to operate on a part-time basis.
If there are to be closed lists—I was interested to learn from his opening remarks that the Lord Chancellor. like me, does not like them—we must put in place proper rules as to how those lists are put together. The selection process is a formal primary. I was interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Blaydon, in that regard. It was interesting to see how each political party in the last European elections carried them out. I start with the Labour Party. As far as I know, the lists were put together after some preliminary sifting at local level in the smoke-filled rooms at Stoke Rochford. The lists were zipped and stitched together in that manner.
We in the Conservative Party had a process which improved upon that. We had a series of siftings which culminated in a hustings meeting where all those present voted, and ranked the candidates to go on the list. That in fact was less satisfactory than it sounds. In my case some of my supporters wanted to go to the selection meeting. They left home on the west coast of Cumbria at around six o'clock in the morning to go to Lancashire. They had to sit through the entire meeting, otherwise they were not allowed to vote. The poll was carried out late at night and they arrived hack home at 10 o'clock. They were aged about 80. That cannot be a good way of selecting party candidates; it is neither even-handed nor proper. In that regard the party that did the best job was the Liberals. They had hustings and a postal one-man:one-vote system.
If we are to go down that route, it is essential that the rules for selection of the candidates by the parties are made strictly clear by regulation, and that public money be provided to fund that.
It is also inevitable that partisan-elected Members in this House will considerably alter the nature of the House. Indeed, on a number of occasions I have found
640
myself biting my tongue to stop myself making "House of Commons-style" interventions to make a point related to my Euro-constituency, which I know would make a good press release.
If we are not to have a fully or predominantly elected second Chamber, it is important that the traditions of this House, which are markedly different from those down the corridor and which accord it considerable public esteem, are not lost. Populist party political point-scoring is inherent to elected partisan politics. But I suspect that the introduction of even a small number of partisan-elected politicians is likely to change quite markedly the way this House works. It is important that we are clear about that before embarking in that direction. It may not be a reason for not doing it; but we do not want to do it blindly.
Finally, great care and thought needs to be given to the date and form of the election. Of one thing I am quite sure: it should not unthinkingly be made to coincide with the Euro-elections. I have fought four European elections and contrary to what is suggested in the White Paper, none of them had anything at all to do with Europe. Rather, they appeared to be a plebiscite on the superficial popularity of the government of the day on the particular Thursday in June when the election was held. As far as I can see, that plebiscite is conducted without any serious national discussion of the issues in advance. It would be an error to embark blindly down that road for elections in that way.
In his opening remarks the Lord Chancellor called on critics of the proposals and said that they should come forward with an alternative. I shall not do that. There is much about which I am still not sure. But we must be clear on one important constitutional principle; that is, whether we in the United Kingdom are to have a genuinely bicameral system, or the unicameral Parliament to which is attached an institutionalised Comite de Sages—a kind of national Economic and Social Committee.
I am not clear what the Government want. They must make up their mind. The answer to that question is of fundamental importance to the future of Parliament in Westminster and the form in which democracy evolves in Britain in the coming century. Once again, if one can be clear about that, a whole series of other things will follow.
In his opening remarks the Lord Chancellor said that he did not expect much agreement on the matters under discussion this evening and tomorrow. Having heard the speeches so far, I disagree. There is general agreement to disagree with the noble and learned Lord's proposals. I asked myself why, and the answer came from a Labour predecessor of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, my noble kinsman—an hereditary Peer—Lord Longford, to whom he gave such a generous tribute not all that many weeks ago. Lord Longford said at least twice in my hearing in this Chamber that there was one overridingly important thing to remember about this House, and I dare say he observed the proposition as much in the breach as in the observance; that is, that

641
the House of Lords is a Parliament and not a club. It is because the Government have forgotten my noble kinsman's proposition that the proposals that have come forward have engendered such criticism.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, though neither Minister can regard the White Paper as having yet achieved a terrific push forward from this debate, both the Government and the Wakeham commission were quite subtle in the way in which they tried to forestall in-House objections. I refer to the proposal which I find a little curious in the context of radical thought; that is, that life Peers should be entitled to stay for life.
I was particularly intrigued by the proposal in paragraph 95 that the Government would welcome views on the possibility of a resettlement grant for Peers who choose to resign or retire. However, I should like to make a specific suggestion so that at least if it were to go forward—that is unlikely, for reasons I shall mention in a moment—we would get value for taxpayers' money.
My suggestion is that each year, all life Peers would be entitled to bid for a stated number of departure tickets. The lowest bids would be selected first. That would continue until either the quota for the year was filled or—here I nod to the Treasury—the available funds were expended, whichever came first. Though a paid exit ticket is not a particularly respectable device, I suspect that all of us eventually, with trembling hands and fading eyes, would be guided to fill in the departure application form by our children, grandchildren or even perhaps our great-grandchildren. At any rate, that is my suggestion to obtain good value for money.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. It may be of interest to him and he may think it relevant that when I was in another place I helped the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary, to pilot the Life Peerages Act. We made it perfectly plain that those who accepted life Peerages had them for life.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful intervention.
The Lord Chancellor wants specific proposals. My main one must be that a period of consolidation is allowed before any further change is made to the major reform already made to the House of Lords. I intended to suggest five years from change to change and was intrigued that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, suggested 15 to 20 years. Mine would appear to be the more modest suggestion.
However, there would be one exception. The topping-up of hereditary Peers, which is due to come to an end at the end of this Session, probably should neither be renewed nor be replaced by fresh elections. That would allow natural attrition in the number of hereditary Peers. That would be a good way of reducing the number of hereditary Peers which seems to be one of the Government's main objectives.
642
I am strongly opposed to a hybrid House as that is so clearly political tokenism, whether the token is as small as 20 per cent or as big as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would like. However, the real reason that I do not want further change at the present time is that there is a far more important constitutional issue to be dealt with: the now rapid decline in the reputation of Parliament as a whole and particularly that of the House of Commons. I believe that may have four causes. The first, I suggest, is the ending of the political battle between capitalism and socialism as economic systems. That was an almost single-handed achievement of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. However, that has made party politics, and thus the House of Commons, less exciting, less challenging and arguably, in a radical sense, less important.
The second reason for the decline is the attempt made by many governments, but now increasingly successfully, to dominate, bypass and frustrate the will of the House of Commons and thus to emasculate that Chamber. The third reason is the misbehaviour, spotlighted and much exaggerated in public perception, of a few venial or foolish MPs over the past 10 years. I speak only in terms of parliamentary behaviour. That has brought Parliament into public disrepute and made the House of Commons, in Groucho Marx terms, a club of which many today would not wish to be a member. The fourth reason is the desire and success of the media in gaining ever growing influence over the conduct of public affairs in this country.
The consequence of all that is that the House of Commons is decreasingly a career of choice for the most able and talented of our citizens. I come to this conclusion on the experience of my professional observation of the Commons from the Press Gallery for 16 years from 1975 to 1991. Since then I have continued that observation as a hobby. One by one the great political names have departed from the House of Commons. I refer to Thatcher, Powell, Heath. Whitelaw, Foot, Heffer, Benn, Healey, Grimond and Jenkins. Those who have succeeded them do not seem likely to replace them.
I recommend to your Lordships a study of the register of MPs' interests as it reveals how very modest are the achievements and experiences of a significant proportion of the MPs who have been elected in the past 10 years. That, combined with the submissiveness of MPs to the present government, is a sad picture. My noble friend Lord Hurd gave the telling example of Mr Clifton-Brown not being able to continue as a Front Bench agriculture spokesman as he is a farmer. However, that is part of the ethos of the House of Commons today and it is not the kind of thing that makes people want to become MPs. My worry is that, especially when combined with the power of professional and political civil servants, this will result in the British people increasingly feeling that the House of Commons is no longer able to defend their individual rights, freedoms and interests.
The dangerous consequence of that is that we could move towards the position in France where all too often the mob is seen as the protector of the people.

643
When a French government put forward a proposal which is unpopular with those it affects they are often faced with the choice of surrendering to the mob or sending in the CRS to break their heads. I should hate to see Britain in that position.
By contrast to the House of Commons, the House of Lords represents a huge and, indeed, growing reservoir of experience, talent and expertise and, above all, effective independence. Seldom can there have been a better example of the House of Lords in its role of effective watchdog for better government than in its performance over the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill last month.
I believe that the earlier reform of this House was justified, especially when moderated by the brilliant—I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble friend Lord Cranborne here—compromise of having 92 hereditaries and by the conversion of a number of distinguished hereditaries into life Peers. That reform was justified both because of the unacceptability of 750 hereditaries with the right to at tend and vote—a number which showed no real sign of reducing naturally—and also because of the longstanding public demand for reform.
I say straight away that the reason we are holding this debate is, to some extent at least, because my party demanded, "No stage one without stage two", a demand to which the Government, I think wrongly, gave way. In their 1997 manifesto, on which the Government were originally elected, they called for,
"an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future".
I know that that did not mean there was no possibility of further reform, but it was meant to be free-standing. The real pressure for stage two came from the Conservatives and, to be fair, from the Liberal Party, which is far more radical about the whole thing and would basically wish to abolish the House of Lords totally in its present form and have a fully elected chamber. That was certainly its position until recently.
The democratic deficit has been largely reduced by the earlier reform. Although the evidence of the performance of the present House is by no means complete, I frankly think that it is promising and that we have made much progress. I do not believe that there is public demand for further reform or, as Sir Bernard Ingham used to say when he was anxious to guide the press away from some mythical hare, "It is not what they are talking about in 'The Three Ferrets' at Hebden Bridge".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor predicted that there would be no consensus on the White Paper and he has been proved right. There is no consensus on stage two either in this House or in the House of Commons or even in the media. Therefore, I suggest—I hope that this is music to the ears of both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—that the Government postpone proposals for further changes in this House, at least until the end of this Parliament. I believe that there are much more important uses of parliamentary time over the next four years.
8.38 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, fear that much of what I have to say will be a repetition of many of the forceful speeches already made, notably that the White Paper is far too focused on composition rather than ensuring a workable, effective upper House.
I am mindful of my speech when I spoke on the White Paper on the first stage of Lords' reform when I was the 128th of 135 speakers. I introduced my remarks with a slight Freudian slip when I said the debate had been an excellent opportunity for your Lordships to "let off wind" when I should have said let off steam. Today, however, we have an opportunity not to let off steam about the future of your Lordships' House but rather to debate the most prudent and workable solution to complete Lords' reform.
I have always supported reform of this House, although I recognise that that process will mean my ultimate removal from it, having served here for more than 24 years. In that time, I have never suggested that the structure, composition or mechanics of the Palace of Westminster are faultless. However, I continue to maintain that this House has done an excellent job and I remain convinced that hereditary Peers have contributed substantial service to this country through their work in this Chamber and their contribution to the many Select Committees on which they have served for many years.
We have brought hands-on experience in many varied walks of life and have offered a different focus to debates. None the less, whatever the practical reality, I am not able to defend my place in this House in the context of a theoretical democracy. Democracy, we were told when the process began, would be the guiding light of reform of the House of Lords. As we all know, the White Paper proposes that only 20 per cent of the new House will be directly elected—the remainder will be appointed by an appointments commission or the faceless authors of political party lists.
The White Paper threatens to transform your Lordships' House, which was once a pillar of this country's constitution—it was hewn by passing years and became a proven guardian of our democracy—into nothing more than a nodding donkey for the other place. I had hoped that, in leaving this Chamber, I should at least leave a beacon of democracy that was fully equipped to scrutinise, delay and amend—but not reject—government measures. The cross-section of distinguished Peers from all walks of life in your Lordships' House makes it clear that the current system of appointing noble Lords has worked remarkably well. It would be a terrible shame if the future system were not equally successful.
Was I naïve in hoping that my position would be sacrificed in the noble name of democracy rather than on the altar of naked and unashamed patronage? Once the process was started, it seemed that the only justifiable conclusion was going to involve a largely elected House. In hesitating on that road—or maybe growing weary of the constitutional intricacies—the

645
Government may be overlooking what matters to the cause of good governance in favour of what matters to their friends.
The White Paper contains paragraph after paragraph relating to the composition of the House, but a scant two and a half pages outlining the powers of this House, which surely is the nub of the issue. Completing reform of the House of Lords should, above all, be aimed at providing more effective governance.
It may be unfair of me to presume this, but it appears that the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, for whom I have huge respect, has developed a bit of a bee in his bonnet about removing the remaining hereditary Peers. Is that, I wonder, because he believes that it will further the cause of effective governance? My greatest disappointment about the White Paper is that its proposals would effectively enfeeble this House at a time when its powers should be enhanced.
Our role, of course, is not to initiate policy but to refine, scrutinise and check government policy. The House has always respected the Salisbury convention, which I wholeheartedly support. In my experience over many years here, our theoretically indefensible mish-mash of hereditary and life Peers has fulfilled that important role with distinction.
The question now is: what kind of theoretically defensible body will continue efficiently to perform those functions? Will it be the politically patronised or the electorally mandated? In our heart of hearts, we all know the answer. When reform was started, many people issued warnings. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, warning the Government against embarking on a journey when they had no clear idea of the final destination. Perhaps those warnings are coming home to roost. We find that the process is floating on a grey sea of uncertainty and confusion. In such times, our last—indeed, our only—place of refuge will be the simple tenets of democracy. If we are effectively to complete reform of the House of Lords, we should trust the people to elect at least half of the Members of the new House.
Finally, I turn briefly to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Mostyn—I mean of Crosby. That is another Freudian slip! She referred to the crisis of public confidence in the parliamentary process. One of my enduring frustrations during my many years here has been the stubborn public perception and the media consensus that the House of Lords is one of the most exclusive clubs in Britain and is, in essence, a fairly ineffectual body. That has patently not been the reality, and I hoped that the process of reform would substantially improve the public perception of your Lordships' House. Sadly, the reaction of the public and the media to the publication of the White Paper suggests that the reverse is the case.
8.46 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we generally observe the convention in this House that we do not criticise or discuss the affairs of another place, and it tends to observe a similar convention. However, that will have to be put carefully to one side for the purposes of this debate; otherwise, Members in another place will have very little to discuss.
It is interesting that of the half dozen or so former Members of another place who have spoken so far, none has defended the House of Commons' current ability to scrutinise legislation. Very few Members of another place—I refer to those who are not currently serving as Ministers—would say that the House of Commons is now an effective body for scrutinising legislation. The evidence for that is incontrovertible. Deeply flawed legislation, such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, emerged from consideration by the Commons virtually unamended. When Ministers brought such legislation to this House, they thought that it was in good shape and fit for the statute book. However, by the end of the passage of such legislation through your Lordships' House, a rather different conclusion had been reached—certainly in relation to the RIP Act. It was a much better piece of legislation after noble Lords had discussed it.
Against that background, your Lordships' House surely plays an increasingly vital role in scrutinising legislation and in asking another place to think again about provisions with which they disagree or about which they have not thought in the first instance. When that happens, the Government's automatic reaction has been to criticise the institution of your Lordships' House rather than to examine the policy. That is surely unacceptable.
During the passage of the anti-terrorism legislation. the Home Secretary—or at least his agents—made it known that he thought that the legislation was being "kneecapped" and "disembowelled" by unelected Peers. That was an interesting allegation not only in terms of its substance, which was entirely untrue—the more workable Act that is on the statute book bears witness to that—but also in terms of the emphasis that was placed on the unelected nature of this House. That is particularly significant when we consider that the shape of the current House is squarely the responsibility of this Government. I should be the first to accept that it is flawed but, despite that, it has delivered improvements to legislation.
The Government's byword in reforming Parliament has been "modernisation". The House of Commons has been modernised to the extent that guillotine Motions ensure that debates are stifled, timed votes mean that no one has to bother with the arguments and the results of votes are an entirely foregone conclusion; they are, in effect, a rubber stamp. What other conclusions could be drawn from an institution with a voting record in which the Government have yet to let the ball into their net? Noble Lords should try

647
going to William Hill's and placing a bet on the outcome of a particular Division in the other place; the odds will he fairly slim.
The same approach now awaits your Lordships' House from the same authors of this modernising zeal. It is interesting that the one House of Parliament which still works is now the focus of the Government's reform agenda. I should be the first to accept that there is a strong case for change, but the objective, as has been said universally this afternoon, must be to strengthen the ability of Parliament as a whole to hold the executive to account. That is why the House of Lords surely cannot be considered in isolation. Any proposals for this House must strengthen its independence and effectiveness and, indeed, preserve or increase its powers, particularly in relation to its role in preventing abuses of the quinquennial Act.
The Government have demonstrated continually that they do not consider a House of Lords made up of appointed Peers to be legitimate. I referred to the earlier remarks of the Home Secretary, but it has been reflected by almost every other Cabinet Minister whose legislation has come in for a mauling in this House. Is it not strange, therefore, that the proposals in the White Paper are, in effect, for a wholly nominated House, albeit one that is cloaked in the aura of electoral democracy by laundering a small portion of the party nominations through the discredited party-list system? That is the reality of what we are being presented with. It is seen by almost every party and every commentator, apparently apart from Her Majesty's Government, including, it seems, 140 or so of their own normally ultra-loyal Back-Benchers, as being a sham.
If the case for elections is made, surely they should be done properly. In my view, that must mean, first, that the mechanism should be direct elections and, secondly, that the elected element would have to make up the majority. Surely if that were not the case, the elected Peers would he overwhelmed by the voices of the appointed, and the function not of their membership but of their election—how they came to this place—would be purely to add a flavour, and no more than that, of democratic legitimacy. Terms of appointment would have to be long with no possibility of re-election, and a statutory appointments commission should select the appointed Members. I do not begin to deny that the task of that appointments commission would be tough, and no doubt it would have to be revisited.
We have been told repeatedly that the election of a majority of Members to this House would be unacceptable because it would create an automatic rival to the supremacy of the House of Commons. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I do not accept that. Members would be elected to this House to perform a very different function. They would not be elected to the House of Commons mark two but to a body whose functions and purpose are entirely different. Those functions and purpose are to scrutinise in detail legislation which has already passed through the House of Commons and to act as a check and balance on that institution.
648
The alternative is to continue with an appointed House but one in which the overall numbers and relative party strengths are laid down, unlike the current extraordinary arrangements where the patronage and potential for control by the Prime Minister are unlimited. They are powers of patronage which, as we have seen and discussed, have been used very fully by the current Prime Minister, who has hand-picked 250 or so individuals to sit as the jury on the Government's performance. Surely that is taking the principle of self-assessment a little too far.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor drew parallels with the judiciary, who, indeed, are appointed and not elected. But how valid is that? Surely we are closer to the defendant picking his own jury from among his associates to consider his performance—in this case, the defendant being the Government. On occasion I take friends and associates from overseas around the House of Lords. They ask how people come to this House and whether the numbers are limited. When I explain that if the Prime Minister feels that he is not doing well enough he can simply appoint a few more people to the House, they are quite simply staggered. That makes the case for change.
There is a case for a wholly appointed House—the noble Lord, Lord Neill, made it extremely forcibly—but within a structured framework and with entry controlled by an appointments commission. The current House benefits immeasurably from the experience of very senior figures from politics, business, science, the arts, the military, the law, religion and the voluntary sector. It is clear that few such figures would put themselves forward for election as full-time legislators.
However, there is a great drawback to an appointed House; that is, that the Government do not recognise the legitimacy of an unelected House. When this House made changes to legislation—in particular, recently to the anti-terrorism Bill—I never once heard the Lord Chancellor or the Leader of the House on the radio defending the right of the unelected House of Lords to stand up to the House of Commons. That was simply not known. So long as that remains the case, surely we are being led inextricably towards a majority-elected House. But the Government realise that such a House would be powerful and difficult to control. Therefore, they have predictably chosen the option which they believe would give a cosy feeling of elections but, in fact, would be based largely on party nominations with only the Cross-Benchers chosen independently.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kicked off the debate by implying more or less that one compromise was as good as any other and that there would be no compromise that would seem to be particularly strongly held. Indeed, that has proven to be the case. However, I certainly recognise the point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood that the one compromise that has not come out too favourably is the one made by the noble and learned Lord.

649
Surely one principle of good governance is accepted by all the parties, apart from—uniquely, so far as I am aware—the Government; that is, that changes to our constitution and to Parliament itself are extraordinarily important and should be made so far as possible only with consensus between the political parties. That is vital if a lasting settlement is to be found.
That is why I was quite staggered to hear the noble and learned Lord say that we were not looking for a long-term satisfactory solution but for the right solution for this year, perhaps next year or perhaps for a very few years afterwards. I do not believe that that is what we should he doing now. We have an historic opportunity to move towards a strengthened Parliament—a strengthened House of Lords being a major factor in it; we should not merely consider how to get the Government out of a difficult hole so that they can say that they have completed the reform of the House of Lords, that it is time to bury that and to go on to something else.
Surely most people accept that the institution of Parliament is greater perhaps even than our current Government. It may even last longer and should be treated with care. By contrast, as we heard earlier, the decision taken by the Government to renege on the promise to refer the issue to a Joint Select Committee so that Parliament as a whole can take a view merely follows the prevailing cavalier attitude.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can take very little comfort from the discussion we have had so far. His proposals have been universally condemned from all sides of the House, by members of the Royal Commission, by Labour Back-Benchers in another place and, indeed, by almost all sections of the press. We have an historic responsibility. We should rise to that challenge.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, from all the contributions today there appears to be agreement on all sides of the House and, indeed, in the country at large that we need a second Chamber. There is also broad agreement that it should be a revising Chamber charged with scrutiny of new legislation and holding the Government to account. It should not seek to, or be put in a position where it could or would, pose a threat to the House of Commons as,
"the pre-eminent voice and representative of the people",
to quote the Prime Minister in the introduction to the White Paper.
There is also general agreement that the second Chamber should be less political, that it should accommodate Members with outside careers, that it should operate on an expenses-only basis, and that the qualities needed for membership are expertise, experience, diversity, independence and a willingness to contribute to the workings of the Chamber, albeit in many cases on a part-time basis. Is that not a description of the House that we have at present? So why should we change it? Why indeed?
650
The main arguments for change are that the existing House lacks democratic legitimacy and that its membership should be more representative of society as a whole. Many noble Lords have addressed the question of legitimacy. Many argue that the only source of democratic legitimacy is through election. If that is the case, then logic requires that the second Chamber should be 100 per cent elected. Many favour this option. But it is ruled out because it clashes with the accepted need to preserve the primacy of the House of Commons. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us today that election is not the only basis of legitimacy.
In the House Magazine of last November, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, claimed that it is a curious myth that elections are the only source of legitimacy. He argued:
"We regard bishops as legitimate and certainly judges. Legitimacy clearly has something to do with how people get to positions, but also with the definition of these positions, with the way in which decisions are reached, and even with history. Having a portion of elected members from huge constituencies and for long periods of time is probably a mistake, which the electorate will see as deception rather than empowerment".
The larger the elected element, the greater the threat to the House of Commons. The smaller the element, the more it is an ineffective sop to electoral principle. It is unlikely that the elective process would attract a wide range of expertise and experience. Elected Members are to be closed-list party nominees, making the House much more political.
Unlike the previous two speakers, I believe that we should reject an elected element and accept that appointment is the best option for this House in that it is the best way of assuring the desired quality and spread of membership. We should concentrate on making the appointments process as transparent and as effective as possible and thereby more acceptable to the electorate. The constitution and role of the proposed statutory appointments commission is therefore of the utmost importance.
Unfortunately, the temporary Appointments Commission got off to a bad start. It raised public expectations. It attracted over 3,000 applications. It then chose only 15 new Members, all of whom might readily have been appointed under existing mechanisms. The proposed statutory appointments commission must not make that kind of mistake. It must earn public acceptance and therefore legitimacy. It will stand or fall on its perceived ability to make membership of the House more representative of society as a whole than it is at present and better able to execute its functions than it does now. That is not an easy task.
The proposals for the statutory appointments commission set out in paragraphs 65 to 68 of the White Paper seem by and large sensible. I have one or two suggestions. I believe that consideration should be given to establishing the appointments commission as a committee of the Privy Council. I think that the proposed statutory cap of 600 Members is a mistake. I propose a more flexible guideline because I believe that the term of employment should remain as it is

651
now—for life. In any case, the 600 cap looks to be unworkable in practice under the White Paper proposals as they now stand.
I believe that there should be an option for retirement at any time and a statutory retirement age at, say, 75. In that event, there should be an "emeritus" category of membership, by which at the end of the Parliament in which a Member reached retirement, he or she could put their name forward for reappointment. It would be up to their fellow Members to decide on their re-appointment by secret ballot. Candidates receiving the requisite number of votes would qualify for continued membership for the next Parliament.
If there is to be an elected element, which I do not advocate, I would support a suggestion made by the noble Lord. Lord Norton of Louth, that Members of the European Parliament should be that element. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, combines the role of MEP with representation in this House. He was very much anti the election process being associated with the European elections; but if candidates at those elections were to be elected for both roles, I think that that would increase the interest of the electorate. However, as I say, I am not in favour of an elected element, and I bring that in only if it becomes a necessity.
As a Cross-Bencher I support strongly the proposals for the maintenance of a strong independent representation. As an hereditary Peer, I wanted to see a provision for some continued residual representation of that peerage. After all, we are one of the country's minority communities. That would acknowledge the historical evolution of this great institution and provide an element of continuity. But I guess it is not to be.
My points are relatively minor reforms that could be introduced without radically changing the existing House. A much more radical proposal in the White Paper is to separate membership of this House from the peerage. But would it really help to make the House more representative of society as a whole if it was divorced from the peerage and the sense of duty and public service that traditionally goes with it?
This, it seems to me, is a matter for you life Peers and life Peeresses to decide. There are 587 of you, although not many are here at the moment. But you are all experienced achievers in your respective fields. You form a unique pool of expertise and experience. Casual research reveals that 20 per cent of you came from the other place, including two former Prime Ministers, live former Chancellors of the Exchequer and more than 60 other former Ministers; another 20 per cent come from business, international commerce and financial services; and some 14 per cent are lawyers and judges. Other well represented sectors are local government, the Civil and Foreign Services, trades unions, teachers, professors, doctors, nurses, the voluntary services, the armed forces and police, agriculture, the religious faiths and the media.
The future of this House is now in your hands. Your successors, if the White Paper proposals are implemented, will be designated "Members of the
652
Lords" or "MLs". Only you can answer this question: would you be sitting in this House today if you had been asked to become an ML, rather than being given a life peerage? It must be your judgment and yours alone if this proposal makes sense. It seems to me to be a high-risk strategy from which there would be no turning back.
As so many noble Lords have said, this House is a treasure trove of expertise, experience, independence and diversity. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House confirmed that. He said that,
"there is expertise in your Lordship's House on all conceivable topics known to the mind of man".—[Official Report, 13/12/01; col. 1414.]
My Lords, why change it?
9.7 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. He and I have been friends for nearly 50 years; he will remember sitting one cold winter in the depths of Canada, in Moosejaw, when we were learning to become Royal Air Force pilots. It is interesting that he speaks today not just as an hereditary Peer but as a re-elected hereditary Peer. He was unlucky on the first ballot but, under our current system, when one of our colleagues became deceased, he came back. I agree with much of his contribution.
I shall make a few remarks, some of which I hope are original; some will find an echo of consensus; and some may well find total rejection. I make them against the background of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, called in her speech a crisis of confidence in the parliamentary system. She is quite right. From this debate should come the blueprint for the United Kingdom's second parliamentary Chamber.
First, the second Chamber should contain men and women of independence, experience and expertise who give a commitment to this country, in particular to protect its democratic foundations—men and women who recognise that the House of Commons is the preeminent House because its Members are elected by the people and it is they who create the government of the day. The second Chamber cannot represent the people. It is there to be the guardian of our constitution and to revise and scrutinise legislation, as so many of your Lordships have said.
Set against those criteria, I see little merit in a hybrid second Chamber, with 20 per cent elected Members. If the elected element is to be sent here by the party list system on what, by all evidence so far, will be a tiny turnout, it will have little democratic legitimacy and, frankly—I do not mean to be too abusive—will lead to party hacks coming to this Chamber. If it were to be elected by a different system—maybe the first-past-the-post system or some form of proportional representation—it would be more legitimate but nevertheless, because its electoral legitimacy would be stronger, its contest with the primary Chamber of the Commons would be the greater. Some of your Lordships believe that the proportion should be a third or a half. The higher we go, the more the competition will increase and the greater the difficulty.

653
In my judgment, a wholly appointed Chamber selected on the basis of the Royal Commission's proposal could find favour with the great British public if we in this Chamber and those who succeed us were to sell to the public what we are about. We get coverage only during the passage of major Bills such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. But that is our fault. We are not prevented from communicating. We ought as a body corporate to be able to communicate what we are about. As I go up and down the country—I have for only four years had the privilege of serving your Lordships—when I talk to people I find the beginning of a recognition of and thankfulness for the job that this House does. The challenge is to communicate what we do as an appointed Chamber.
My conclusion is that, if 600 is the ideal number of Members, it would be far better to increase the independent, Cross-Bench element than to elect 20 per cent of Members.
Secondly—I recognise that this may be a little controversial—I draw attention to the Law Lords. When I first came into Parliament, I was taught that Parliament creates the laws and the judiciary interprets and disposes. Surely in today's world—let us consider other countries—the judiciary should be totally independent of Parliament. That leads me to the conclusion that all the Law Lords should go. That does not mean that those who have served as Law Lords and demonstrated an independence of mind should not return as appointed Members, but we should at least consider changing the position of the Law Lords.
Thirdly, much play is made of the need for party balance. I recognise that the government of the day should be the largest single party in the upper House. However, the mechanics of that appear horrendously difficult. I have wrestled with them, and I will make one proposal to the Government. One way round the problem would be for a number of ministerial positions to rest with the government of the day. That may be 20 or whatever number is chosen; it could even be a band. Those positions could automatically go to the Government, so that, automatically, the Government of the day would be able to increase the number that they have. Of course, when the Government changed at the next election—assuming that they lost the election—they would lose those people.
I want to raise a fourth point. It is a small point, but I have raised it every time that I have spoken on this subject. The Royal Commission considered the position of the dependent territories. I realise that the Government appear to want to find a new status for Gibraltar, but, leaving that aside, I believe that this House would be strengthened if we had appointed persons with specific knowledge and expertise of Gibraltar, the Falklands and the other significant dependent territories.
Finally, I shall echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. We have had a House of Lords for centuries; we had one long before there was a
654
House of Commons. Why must we reject the name? That is a modernisation idea that has gone too far. I am one of the life Peers on whom he believes that we should have a viewpoint, and my view is that it should remain the House of Peers, whatever happens.
The issue of functions is not covered in much depth in the White/Green Paper. Nevertheless, in the introduction, the Prime Minister places some emphasis on the matter, tasking us to be better able to perform. We are to be better able to scrutinise and revise—I see a distinguished former member of the Public Accounts Committee, under whose chairmanship I had the privilege of serving—and that scrutiny and revision can be done exceedingly well, but we must have strong people of independent mind on the committee.
I view the way in which we handle secondary legislation here with amazement. I cannot see why any Government should resist allowing this House to amend, reject or delay secondary legislation. All three options should be within the compass of the Chamber. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing with secondary legislation, not primary. A delay of up to three months is hardly an advance. When I was Chairman of Ways and Means, there were thousands of statutory instruments going through that department every session in the other place, not just a few hundred. Given that number, the second Chamber will not wish to amend, delay or reject many. Any Government should recognise that it is a serious matter if a question is being raised about that. We should be able to do all three things. The same applies to regulations.
It may be an oversight, and I accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could not cover every aspect in his introductory speech, but the Quinquennial Act is very important to our parliamentary democracy. I hope that when the Leader of the House winds up, he will make it clear that there is no proposal to alter that Act.
My final point is not controversial. In making my suggestions, I emphasise to the noble and learned Lord that there is nothing personal in what I want to say. I am thinking about the control of our proceedings in a modernised House. I have been here for only four years, hut, as I understand it, things are done through the usual channels, the Chief Whip, the Whip on duty, the Leader of the House or some combination of those noble Lords. There seems to be little or no control by the noble Lord or noble Baroness sitting on the Woolsack. I emphasise again that there is nothing personal in this, but to me, as a democrat, it was—I am not sure what the right word is—wrong or upsetting that the Lord Chancellor, the quasi-Speaker, took prayers, rightly; presided over three questions. rightly; and then, for the fourth, stepped aside, still wearing the wig of office, and answered a political question. Not only did he answer a political question, there was almost a mini-political debate between the Lord Chancellor and the Liberal Party. I believe that that is wrong.

655
After the mini-debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor takes off his wig and goes to the Dispatch Box to sell the Government's policy on the reform of your Lordships' House. In my judgment, such a partisan role is not compatible with the role of whoever is to preside over the proceedings of this Chamber, if it is to be modernised. After all, it is to that person each of us and anyone else who is appointed or elected to this Chamber, particularly those who are elected, will look to defend their rights and ultimately protect this House and the nation's constitution.
Therefore, if there is a crisis of confidence in Parliament, and I believe that there is—
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, explain a little more what he means by the Speaker of the House, who has no powers whatever over our proceedings, standing as the defender of our liberty?
Lord Naseby: My Lords, that is probably for another day, but in principle I am saying that elected Members sent to this House by the general public—and the Quinquennial Act is a prime example—will look to whoever is presiding over the proceedings to ensure that their viewpoint is given fair exposure. If necessary, that is the person whom they can see privately and raise a particular point with, as is done in other Chambers. But it goes wider than that.
I recognise that other noble Lords want to speak so I shall conclude. If there is a crisis of confidence in Parliament—and there is—in my judgment the answer does not lie in a hybrid solution. Either it must be fully elected or fully appointed. My four years here lead me to believe that a fully appointed Chamber could be sold with conviction and with success to the British public.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I believe that the House of Lords should become a House of comment and not another House of Commons directly elected by the people. As a House of comment, deliberation, debate and revision, the House of Lords can, in a complementary manner, support the pivotal role of the Commons as the pre-eminent decision-making forum in the British body politic.
In that role, the House of Lords can join all the other bodies which in effect support and comment on the work of the Commons. Incidentally, I point out that all the other bodies to which I refer are unelected and unaccountable: the judiciary; the Monarchy; and, yes, the press and the media. When, for example, did the presenters of the "Today" programme ever stand for election or make themselves accountable to the public? And yet they powerfully influence the political debate in this country; more so indeed than the majority of your Lordships. Before bacon and eggs each morning, it is the "Today" programme, not us, which determines the daily political fry-up.
However, no one suggests, other than perhaps the former Lord Stansgate, that all those other commenting bodies—the press, the media and the
656
judges—should be directly elected. And nor should we as a House of Lords be directly elected. We should rather concentrate on our current job and reform our antiquated practices. We should strive to be an effective, specialising, revising, advising and supervising House, bringing added value to the body politic by becoming that House of comment which I described.
Let me make two recommendations to propel us on that path. First, our Committee system needs root and branch reform. Committees of the Whole House should be abandoned and replaced by Committees in the Moses Room or wherever, using a modern, business-like approach to our work. We should jettison the grace notes and curlicues of custom and practice used in this Chamber, which may be quaint and quixotic to the onlooker but which only serve to impede proper progress and effective debate on legislation that requires contemporary elucidation and not ancient obfuscation.
As for the Select Committees, never has so much talent been assembled for so little return. As a proud member of European Union Sub-Committee C—note how we hide behind the anonymity of the letter "C"—I am appalled that the wonderful array of talent, experience and expertise found among my fellow committee members leads us to write reports on foreign common and security policy which frequently fail to reach the Floor of the House for engaged debate; whose tired and unserviceable presentation makes them an unappetising read. These reports are seldom read outside the House or sent to those who might benefit from them, such as British Members of the European Parliament, because little attention is given to who might be their core audience.
Moreover, I am aggrieved to be part of a committee system whose method of taking evidence is antiquated, inefficient and, at times, downright lacking in civility. On making my way to the committee one day, I was astonished to discover languishing in the Corridor a lone and unattended distinguished European ambassador who had given up his time to come and give evidence to our committee. Common courtesy requires at the very least that he should have been chaperoned and refreshed with tea and biscuits. We did not do that. Instead we boast in our annual report about how proud we are of doing everything on the cheap.
When a witness comes for his or her Star Chamber grilling, further indignities ensue. We still employ an out-of-date recording system, which entails placing the stenographers directly in the sight line of chairmen and witnesses. I looked on in astonishment recently when the Secretary of State for Defence was told to "budge over a bit" because half of the committee could not see him properly.
What about the fraud of holding meetings that are open to the public so that we can claim to be an open, transparent and democratic second Chamber? Our system does everything in its powers to dissuade the public from scrutinising our work. First, we have the farce of finding the ever-changing committee rooms,

657
whereby half the room allocation in the House is peremptorily changed in an attempt to throw participant Peers and the public alike off the trail. Very occasionally an explorer of Shackletonian endurance will find our committee rooms and enter, where he is greeted with stares of surprise and disbelief. But no other welcome is offered. No effort is made to accommodate or inform the unexpected guest about the nature of the inquiry taking place. Soon the member of the public tires and quits this South Pole of democracy, emerging anew into Parliament Square a sadder and no wiser man than when he entered it.
My anxieties about the present European Union Committee system were brought to a head last autumn when the media became hot under the collar about the so-called European army—the European rapid reaction force. Sub-Committee C had published an excellent and informative report on this subject a couple of months previously, but because of the lack of resources and the absence of an established press officer for the Lords, our report was rendered impotent for the purposes of enlightening and enlivening the public debate. No one had heard of it and certainly we had done little to promote it. Our Olympian aloofness means that our report stayed with the gods.
I turn now to the future composition of the House. It has been little appreciated that the Wakeham report does, in effect, call for an indirectly-elected House, alongside those directly elected from the regions, by requiring the remaining 80 per cent or so broadly to reflect the proportion of votes cast for each party at the previous election. The problem with Wakeham is that no satisfactory method is offered of immediately achieving this de facto proportional representation on the surcease of the general election.
I can offer my solution, which I call the "Manchester United squad system" in that, like manager Alex Ferguson perming 11 players on the field out of a wider squad of 30, each political party in the House will field a team of Peers from which will be drawn the quota of Peers eligible to vote according to the percentage of votes cast for the party at the previous general election. Without elaborating on the details of my proposal, which I have summed up in a paper available from my office, I can say that the system has, I believe, the following virtues.
First, it could be enacted immediately after each general election and would be effective from the start of Parliament, unlike Wakeham. Secondly, it would ensure an indirectly-elected House drawn from the popular vote at that election. Thirdly, it would support a proportional representation system that sharply distinguishes the House as a House of comment from the House of Commons, the home of direct elections. Fourthly, it would provide continuity because the wider team from which the quota is drawn does not have to change; and, fifthly, it would provide an easy bridge from the current revised House to the new House in a final form, including the flexibility of setting a cap on the size of the House of 750, 600 or, indeed, a smaller number, if desired.
658
The sixth virtue is that it would accommodate both working Peers and occasional Peers—the unique feature of the current House. Finally, it would allow all Peers to retain equal speaking, voting and all other rights and also allow parties to retain (and honour) senior party supporters without requiring them to be permanently on tap as voting fodder. Peers who were ill, absent on business, or otherwise unavailable, would not be letting down their party.
I shall submit my ideas to the consultation on the White Paper, but it is my firm belief that we now have a golden opportunity to establish a second Chamber fit for the 21st century. We must find the alchemy to secure that noble end.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I was full of high hopes for the White Paper, The House of Lords: Completing the Reform. However, I had suspected that the document might be somewhat confused due to the range of views on the opposite Benches. On the one hand, the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a few years ago, as expressed in Janet Jones' book Labour of Love, stated that he favoured a fully appointed House: while on the other hand we have the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when serving as Lord Privy Seal as expressed in Michael Cockerell's television documentary in February 2000 "Blair's 1,000 Days: The Lady and the Lords" in which she asked:
"How is it possible to justify any House of Parliament which is not at least mainly democratically elected?"
The document is a dog's breakfast. It was rushed out in great haste and there is a major misprint on page 22 where a whole line has been omitted. Moreover, a very short time has been allowed for consultation—only until 31st January. In addition, I have worries about the composition of a new House in certain areas of detail. First, how are the ranks of the bishops to be cut from 26 to 16? There seems to be no detail on that point. Secondly, how will the number of Law Lords be reduced from 28 to 12? Even that total does not seem to have been finally fixed. Thirdly, there is the question of how, in practice, the initial political balancing of the appointed political Peers will take place.
I am also confused by the meaning of certain sentences in the White Paper. On page 25, we are told:
"In particular, the Appointments Commission will ensure that at least 30 per cent of new appointees are women and 30 per cent are men".
What about the remaining 40 per cent?
I shall move on to more detailed criticism. Along with many other speakers, I should like to focus on the role of the appointments commission in relation to political Peers. As has already been said many times, this Royal Commission proposal has been watered down. No wonder my noble friend Lord Wakeham is concerned about parts of paragraphs 65 to 68. The role of the commission has been emasculated; it will not be allowed to choose political appointees, and therefore their quality will be less good due to lack of independent scrutiny. It should not be left to the political parties to select their own people.

659
My next area of criticism concerns whether the new proposed structure will be any better than the existing House or whether it will be worse than the former House. The present House does a good job of revising legislation. As has been stated, 4,761 amendments to Bills were passed in 2000. Adding a number of elected Members may have a symbolic resonance, but would it necessarily produce a more effective second Chamber? Would it make up for the skills lost through the exclusion of the hereditary Peers?
Furthermore, I believe that instability will be introduced by creating a two-tier membership of the House. Overall, it will not add value. It will make the House more complicated and it is unclear whether their numbers will be taken into account when determining the political balance of the House.
My next criticism concerns the problem of bringing the numbers down to 600 within 10 years. Initially the number of Peers must rise. An extra 24 Labour Peers will be needed to rebalance the size of the House, thus pushing the overall size to 727. Then, as stated in paragraph 95, will come,
"a real challenge … to work towards a reduction in numbers".
It is stated in the document that provision will be made for Members formally to retire, but would that apply to elected Members?
Continuing on the theme of the size of the House, if one expects some new appointments over the corning two years before a Bill is passed by the House, then the size of the membership will increase to 750, as stated in paragraph 91. However, the size of the House is to be capped at 600 in 10 years' time. How will that work in practice? The problems governing the mechanics are difficult. As independent life Peers die, will they be replaced automatically, or only when the House is reduced to 600 in size? The same problem of the mechanics will arise with regard to the appointed life Peers. What is to happen if not enough Peers volunteer to retire?
My next concern is the task of the appointments commission of balancing the House according to the political vote at the most recent general election. Paragraph 66 states categorically that the appointments commission cannot enforce resignations, a point which has been referred to by other speakers. However, the problems will become apparent if there is a big change in the party vote or if general elections are called one after the other, as happened in 1974.
My next criticism concerns the form of the Bill that is to come before the House. The complexity of the arrangements could lead to hybridity in the legislation. Some 92 Peers, who in effect are now life Peers, are to be treated differently from the rest of the House. A separate class of elected Peers will be created by the Bill. Some Members will be Peers and some will not. We seem to have a situation where, as per Erskine May, specific private or local interests will be affected in a manner different from the private or other local interests of other persons or bodies in the same category. All those matters will require many hours of debate.
660
In conclusion, the White Paper fails to offer a solution to the composition of the second Chamber and instead creates a complicated and highly unsatisfactory structure for the House.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have enjoyed many of the speeches today. I greatly enjoyed my leader's speech. I agreed with practically all of it—which is quite unusual—until she advocated moving towards an elected House. I can say categorically that I am against an elected House. But, as the Lord Chancellor said, people are willing to compromise, and if we compromise along the lines of the commission's report it might work.
The reason that we must have this House full of good, experienced and able people is what is happening in the Commons. The point has been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and other noble Lords, that the number of Members of the Commons who have no other experience is quite extraordinary. We have all seen in our own lives and our own parties, able young men and young women coming in as research assistants, going out to a party, seeing the party staff, getting a place on the electoral register and becoming candidates. In my view, it would be infinitely better for the House if these able young men first went and did something outside and were successful at that.
The Commons is getting more and more like that. I do not think that there are so many great men corning out of there. Perhaps the best example at the present time is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has done this House a lot of good with his direct approach.
I do not mind the White Paper. Of course I disagree with parts of it, but I do not think it is bad at all. Many parts of it can be put right by this House.
It is important that we have 600 Members because my experience in Europe and elsewhere has shown that the committees of this House have a tremendous value and are thought very much more of than the committees in the House of Commons. We need reasonable numbers of able people to come in and man the committees.
If we are to have elected Members—which I would not like—for goodness sake let us take the 87 recommended and ensure that they are elected not by a list system but as people. We could change the election procedure for the European Parliament at the same time.
We have a lot of work to do. The list system is awful but, if we have names, the election might produce people from the regions who would be extremely valuable. I would still prefer to stick to nominated people because in that way we would know the enormous number of people who are willing to serve in the House of Lords on the old basis.
I have missed out the bishops. I do not see the justification for nominating 16, 12 or any number of bishops to this House. There are able and good people in the Church of England who can be nominated by the excellent committee which has already produced

661
Peers in the House who, it is universally agreed, are exactly the kind of people that we need. Nominees could be people from all the Churches. They do not have to be bishops. They could be vicars—or whatever they call them in the Church of England—or ministers of religion who are good at their jobs. To have bishops as such is wrong in spite of their excellence as persons.
We must also examine the country's opinion of this House. I am afraid that it is regarded by the country as a geriatric House. There are too many old people here. I am 82, and am obviously deteriorating fast. But, so long as you pay my fare down and give me enough for my dinner, I shall come here. Too many people have that view. Indeed, some need the money. I do not say that I cannot use it, but I could do without it at a pinch. So if you cannot shoot us—which would not be popular—then you should buy us out and send us off home with a pension or something of that sort. We must have a House that is up to the minute, not one that is out of date.
Perhaps I may give a small example. I bought a new house with a nice lawn, and I like a croquet lawn. So I rang a friend of mine who is a dealer in manures and said, "I want a bag of tattie manure for my lawn". He said, "You've got a big lawn?". I said, "Not bad. Big enough for a pitch". He said, "you do realise that we now sell manure in tonne bags". It is a small example of how you can get out of date. Many of us are out of date, and we should do something about it before it is too late.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I want to begin by recalling the situation in which I found myself in 1992. At the request of the then Leader of the House of Commons, now the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, I was asked to take the chair of a Select Committee in another place on the Sittings of the House of Commons. Just before the election in 1993, we produced a unanimous report on changing the arrangements for the Sittings, which was broadly accepted. A number of people were kind enough to attach my name to the recommendations of the committee, which was extremely flattering.
However, after the 1993 election, given the Conservative Party's majority in another place, we could perfectly easily have forced through those recommendations with the greatest of ease. I say that as a former Chief Whip. It would have been simple to do. But we did not. At that time we took the view that, until a consensus had been arrived at in implementing the reports of the committee of which I was chairman, we ought not to do that. Eventually, when there was a consensus, nearly all the proposals of my committee were implemented. That was, I believe, in 1996.
How I wish that this Government had a similar approach to major changes in the way in which this House conducts its affairs. If the Government had sought changes in the way in which this House is set up and works in the same way as we did in the House of Commons seven or eight years ago, we should be
662
approaching this situation in a totally different way. I only wish that the Government had not seemed so arrogant in brushing aside any efforts to achieve an agreed reform, which is how we should have gone about it. I very strongly resent that.
I could go on for a long time about the details of the White Paper, but I shall confine myself to two points, the first of which I shall deal with briefly. The Government must radically change their attitude to the House of Lords. The Leader of the House, who is kind enough to be here, will know what I am going to say. The Government's indifference to this House is clearly shown by the way in which they respond to Questions that we put down for them to answer. I remind the Leader of the House that today's Order Paper includes no fewer than 92 Questions for Written Answer that have been awaiting an Answer for more than three weeks. He will not mind me saying that he and I have had discussions about the problem. He nods at that. I know that he is concerned, but he must do more than wring his hands. Something must be done to deal with it.
When I first went to another place, the general rule was that Answers must be given to Written Questions within three or four days. I well remember that in my previous position as Chief Whip down the other end of the building I used to rant when Ministers failed to do that. I also remember ranting at my civil servants when I was a Minister if Written Questions were not answered within three or four days. I understand that one week is now regarded as the norm for Answers to Written Questions, yet we have 92 Questions here that have been waiting for more than three weeks. That is intolerable. It will not do. I invite the Leader of the House to ask his officials to show him an Answer that was given to Mr Burns, a Member of another place, in November with regard to Questions that had not been answered in a short period. He will discover from that that the record of answering Questions promptly is infinitely better in the House of Commons than it is in this House.
I begin with that abrasive point, because it is a reflection of the Government's attitude. It can only come from Ministers and I know from two previous incarnations that Ministers can put these things right if they want to. They ought to do so in this case.
I do not know whether the phrase has been used before, but the Government's general proposals on the composition of the Lords are neither one thing nor another. I am not arguing with the proposal that the Lords should be subservient and of secondary importance to the Commons; I think that it should be. However, it would be impossible to sustain that situation of subservience in the long run if this House were all elected. We cannot have both things. This House cannot be both all elected and subservient to the Commons. The two propositions are incompatible. Our successors in a fully elected House of Lords would not, in time, put up with that situation. That will not do.
The Government are proposing to have 120 elected Members representing the nations and the regions. A number of points have been made on that. However,

663
the proposal seems to suggest that the nations and the regions are not properly represented already. Although I hesitate to name some of my old friends who sit on the Benches opposite, I do not think that they would mind very much if I were to mention them. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn—the former Roy Hughes, an old friend of mine, who is one of the great champions of Wales—or the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, would say if it is suggested that the regions are not properly represented already. There are endless major champions of the regions in the House and I do not know why they need to be significantly strengthened.
I feel that it is far better to leave this House as it is, by making it all appointed, and not to tinker with elected elements. We have already heard a good deal about the horrors of a hybrid House, and I shall not enlarge on that. However, I believe that a hybrid House could be described as neither nowt nor summat—nothing nor something, for those who do not understand my native Yorkshire vernacular.
I now turn to the political element of the House's composition. The Government have proposed that the numbers from each party should reflect the votes cast at the previous general election. If that is to work properly, it surely must mean that there should be an adjustment in the numbers, memberships and the party balances immediately after each general election. I believe that that is what should happen.
That would be best done if those appointed to membership of the House were appointed for only one Parliament at a time. I am very strongly opposed to people being appointed, once the life Peers have all disappeared from the scene, for more than one Parliament. We would say to people, "We are appointing you for one Parliament. It may be that you will be here for two, three or even four Parliaments. It will depend on the balance of votes cast at general elections". As I have said in the House before, there will be no difficulty in finding people at the end of their career who would be happy to come here for one Parliament. Endless people will stand at general elections knowing that they may be in for only one Parliament. I am sure that we could find endless people with great distinction who would be happy to be appointed to this place for only one Parliament. It is essential, however, that we can readjust the membership of your Lordships' House immediately after a general election.
I believe, however, that the concept of party balances according to general election votes is a short-term concept and extremely dangerous. The Government suggest that the balance between the parties of the political Members of the House of Lords should be based on the votes in the previous general election. I tabled a Question, which was answered on 22nd November, asking what would have been the state of party balances in all elections since 1966 if that rule had applied. Leaving aside elections up to 1974 where the Northern Ireland Members took the Conservative Party Whip (I may be excused for doing that because I was the Northern Ireland Whip in another place up to 1974), starting with the first
664
election in 1974 and looking at all the elections since, it is interesting to see how the political Members of the House of Lords would have divided in those circumstances.
During that period the government of the day would have had between 28 and 35 per cent of the vote in this House; the Opposition would have had between 40 and 47 per cent. That means that on each occasion, in each Parliament, the government of the day since 1974 would have had a large minority in this House, in spite of having had a large majority in another place. I have made that point four times already in these debates and at last the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, responded to my point in our last debate, which was good of her.
I have consistently taken the view that the situation at present, where this Government have only 30 per cent of the votes in this House, is totally inadequate; it is quite unfair. The Government are only able to live with it in the short term because the Liberal Democrat Party invariably votes with the Government. But if the situation arose in the future where the Opposition parties were unanimously opposed to the government, and the government had only a small number of the votes, their task in this House would be hopeless.
We need to think in the long term. The carve-up of political Members on the basis of votes in a general election will not work. I predict that it would have to be changed at some future date to be lair to the government of the day. In my view, the government ought to have equality with all other political parties. The government should have 40 per cent of the votes in this House and all other Opposition parties should have 40 per cent; the remaining 20 per cent should be made up of Cross-Benchers. That is how the House should be structured and I hope that at last somebody will take notice of my suggestion.
10.3 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I shall try and move the debate quickly on and my time to half of that so generously allocated.
I speak as someone who, on the one hand, has benefited from the extraordinary privilege of centuries and yet, on the other, as someone who has felt and been made to feel able and entitled to contribute as an equal and full Member of this House. My father thought it was a stuffy place, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, well remembers. He was forced to come here in 1962 when his father died and unsuccessfully tried to get back. But after nearly seven years I have come to understand and respect the independence of this House and would regret any unnecessary dilution of its historic traditions.
I do not wish to prolong the hereditary principle and I am ready to walk the plank when the time comes. If a reasonable adaptation of the Wakeham proposals ever receives the support of a majority of this House, I am ready to vote for them. I would go further and say that this country does not want to see any further postponement of reform.
The research has been done and here I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. He underestimates the feeling. It is up to us to reach a compromise

665
solution, if not this year, at the latest by the end of this Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, a stalemate would be a tragedy. We have heard enough members of the Royal Commission tonight make not only themselves, but also the Government, so unhappy that they should go home and rethink the proposals even before tomorrow's 40 extra speakers.
I do not see any endgame emerging from the present proposals, not least because of the views of another place. I believe that the Government have let the Royal Commission down badly. They have made a fundamental mistake in building up the expectation of an elected Chamber only to fall back on a compromise partial election which, I agree with many others, is no democratic election at all. We do not need a charade of the democracy which exists, more or less, in another place. We are different. We are a part-time, value-for-money House using the best experience which is on offer and we must not throw that away.
Nor do we want to compete with another place for legitimacy. That was well put by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who spoke succinctly of a misleading sense of empowerment. A partially elected Chamber would run the risk of dividing the House and a European-style election, as has been said, would be a sham which would fool no one, least of all the voters. The elected MLs would he chosen like MEPs from large regional constituencies and would not enjoy public confidence like MPs. Once here, they would inevitably expect this House to behave very differently and radically change its procedures. Worst of all, a party dominated, hybrid House, as many have said long before today, would fly in the face of the most important principle which is accepted by everyone; that is, the value of an independent second Chamber which is complementary to the first. That is already a recognised, understood principle, so why threaten it with a mixed bag of clowns and poodles?
I am not personally worried, as I know many people are, about poodles because arrangements can be made, and are proposed, to tighten up the Appointments Commission and make the statutory commission much more independent and authoritative, perhaps involving the Privy Council. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who will speak tomorrow, I am much more worried by the spurious legitimacy of the clowns, as he described them in his excellent recent article in The House Magazine. It would not be wise to give the Commons any impression that MPs are to be overseen by regional shadows whose electors will—as I am afraid is the case with most MEPs—never even learn their names. I do not think that many people, not even the Liberals, see a limited number of regional Peers as a serious plank in the process of devolution. Nations and most of the regions are already well served in this House and any under-representation can and should become an issue for the new appointments commission.
My concern is, therefore, much more basic, rather like that of my noble friend Lord Cobbold. As a Cross-Bencher I deplore the reduction in the number of
666
independents which would be a direct result of the small elected element. The arithmetic is still unclear, not least because of the undecided status of other faiths and the Law Lords, but also because of the disparity of which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe spoke. I believe that 20 per cent is much too low a proportion of independents for a reformed House which will pride itself on its independent character. I was encouraged by the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to go to 33 per cent.
I have not said this before as I do not defend the hereditary principle, but I could come to regret the loss even of hereditary independent Peers elected by their colleagues who already demonstrate independence of mind and other qualities more suited to this House than the remote-controlled regional Peers who are intended to replace them.
I would personally do away with the elected Peers altogether and bring the independent quota up to at least 30 per cent so that the country recognises the value of experience devoid of party political background. I believe that we could build a consensus on that in spite of the present content of the Government's proposals. Of course, there is a limit, perhaps beyond 35 per cent, at which the parties could no longer control the agenda, but we are a long way from that.
I know that there are many in this House, including, I suspect, many on the Government's Back Benches, who are sadly absent at the moment, who have acquired a refreshingly independent character over the years and who would be happy to see a higher proportion of independents to balance party political appointments. If these figures are regarded as unrealistic, I can only say that I hope the Government will at the very least look again at the balance between genuinely independent Peers and party members in this House.
Cross-Benchers cannot in their nature reach corporate decisions, but genuine independence is one issue on which there has been a surprising degree of consensus. While understanding that there will always be compromises where former party members are concerned, many of us feel quite strongly that there should be some basic test of independence on the Cross Benches in a reformed Chamber. However, that must not be interpreted negatively. There should also be encouragement of former party members to join the independents—some noble Lords may currently be considering just that—provided that they had genuinely renounced their party membership.
In time, I believe that genuine independents would become informal "representatives" of a wide cross-section of professions and be recognised by their different constituencies as such, as many are today. The Royal Commission explored that idea but did not take it very far. Those independents would be amplified by some of the other groups that were identified by the commission—minority communities, other faiths, women in public life and members of professions and charities, who perform a democratic function. Such appointments must, as now, be

667
promoted by the relevant sections of society but should not be formally elected or representative because that would produce an unworkable system.
I briefly add my voice to those who would prefer to retain the principle of expenses versus salaries. Having salaries would be another nail in the coffin of the idea of elected Peers. It would be crazy to lose the advantages of unpaid public service—that system already suits the House and the country well.
In summary, I do not want to alter the present functions or character of the House that have developed over centuries. I would strengthen the Appointments Commission, do away with the idea of elections altogether and have a greater proportion of independent Peers replacing the hereditaries. The public are not fooled by sham democracy. I want to see a more, not less, independent House, which the public would perceive as being a truly impartial revising Chamber. Let us not have change for change's sake; we should preserve what we have, which is already of proven value.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am conscious of the time and shall endeavour to keep noble Lords awake. Unfortunately, it is not in my gift to keep noble Lords warm.
I begin by agreeing with a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. We should not be considering reform of the second Chamber as some discrete change to our constitutional framework. We have to look at the second Chamber within the context of Parliament and Parliament's place in our constitutional arrangements. Yet discussion of reform of each House takes place independently, as if change to one Chamber can be considered without reference to its impact on the other.
At the moment, there are clearly problems with the other place in fulfilling some of the functions that are traditionally ascribed to it. Indeed, some people appear to see reform of this House as a means of compensating for the failure of the other place to carry out its functions effectively. If the House of Commons is not doing its job effectively, that is not an argument for reforming the second Chamber; it is an argument for making sure that the first Chamber is provided with the means to do its job properly.
I turn to the content of the White Paper. The Government want to achieve significant change to one Chamber of the legislature. One would therefore expect that for a change of such constitutional importance the Government would have a powerful and consistent argument to deploy in favour of it. However, when we look at the White Paper and what has preceded it, what do we find? We find not only that no consistent case is made but also that Ministers and other proponents of reform appear uncertain about what the justification is for change.
At least five reasons have been offered: those of democracy, legitimacy, representation, variety and effectiveness. The first finds expression in the Government's election manifestos of 1997 and 2001;
668
the second finds some support in the 1999 White Paper; the third underpins the report of the Royal Commission and the Supporting Documents accompanying the White Paper; the fourth has been advanced by the Leader of the House; and the fifth was put forward by the Prime Minister.
The argument that electing some Members is the democratic option is, as I have argued previously, sustainable only if democracy is defined in terms of process—that is, election. If one defines it in terms of ensuring that the wishes of the people are carried into effect, then in fact our existing arrangements are democratic. Electors choose one body—the party ingovernment—to carry out the programme that they have endorsed and they can hold that body to account at the next general election. One has the paradox that an unelected and, hence, unaccountable second Chamber is necessary to preserve the fundamental accountability of the political system.
I have advanced that argument previously in your Lordships' House. My definition and resulting line of argument were rejected by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House on 21st June last year. In the course of his comments, the noble and learned Lord said:
"I reject the proposition that democracy is all about the will of the people to be paramount".—[Official Report, 21/6/01; col. 113.]
Yet we now find that the Government accept the argument that I have advanced. In the supporting documents to the White Paper, we find the following—the Lord Chancellor repeated it in his opening speech—
"It is widely asserted that in the twenty-first century, the only basis for selecting a chamber of Parliament in a democratic society is a form of election. The Government does not accept that for a second chamber in the UK parliamentary system. It is vital to know where true accountability lies".
It then goes on to develop the argument that I have just outlined, although not taking it to what I regard as its logical conclusion.
The second, and related, argument is that election will confer legitimacy on the second Chamber. The 1999 White Paper spoke of the need for greater legitimacy to fulfil the function of legislative revision. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House made a similar point on 21st June last year in talking about acceptability. But how will the election of some Members confer greater legitimacy on the Chamber as a whole?
If legitimacy derives from election, what is the position of appointed Members? According to the Leader of the House, all Members will be equal, he they elected or appointed. Therefore, if appointed Members can claim legitimacy, why do we need elected Members? In any event, that line of argument begs the question: legitimacy to do what? Is it to express an informed view, or to carry out the functions of legislative revision, debate, and scrutiny of the executive? I have argued that the legitimacy of your Lordships' House must be earned, not assumed. I believe that it is earned through the work of Members who have expertise and experience—a phrase that I first used in evidence to the Wakeham commission.

669
There is nothing in the material before us to show that elected Members will add anything to the effective fulfilment of those tasks.
Then we have the argument that election will deliver a more representative House. The case advanced by the Royal Commission was that election could be used to ensure that the different parts of the United Kingdom each achieve a voice in the second Chamber. It is repeated in the White Paper and in the supporting documents. One can see the logic of the argument. However, it is not conclusive because election is not the only means of delivering that particular goal. Indeed, if one wishes to achieve a House with a membership drawn from a wide range of backgrounds—not only regional but also social and economic—then election is a highly inefficient means of achieving that. A process of appointing members can be much more efficient. If one wants a more structured representation of the regions, that can be achieved without the need for direct election. Indirect election may, in this context, generate fewer problems.
Furthermore, it is not clear from the White Paper and supporting documents whether Members should be representative of the regions—that is, speak for them—or simply be drawn from the regions, rather in the same way that Bishops are drawn from the Church but speak in an individual and not a representative capacity. The White Paper talks of representation, yet the supporting documents point out that a directly elected Member of the second Chamber would have the potential to challenge the representative role of Members of the other place—a potential for conflict clearly deemed to be undesirable.
The argument that elected Members will add variety is a variation on the argument of representation. It was offered by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House on 17th December in answer to a Question from my noble friend Lord Geddes. The noble and learned Lord believes that election leads to variety. Has the noble and learned Lord looked recently at the profile of the membership of the other place? It is because of the absence of variety that the noble and learned Lord has been steering the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill through this House. Greater variety can best be achieved through appointment and not through a uniform system of election. A proactive, independent appointments commission could do an invaluable job in ensuring that Members are drawn from—not representative of, but drawn from—a wide range of backgrounds. A great deal can be done in that direction. The argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord does not bear the weight of serious reflection.
The argument that reform will deliver a more effective House is one that is advanced by the Prime Minister in the foreword to the White Paper. It has already been quoted earlier in the debate. He wrote:
"The imperative is for a reformed second chamber performing broadly the same functions as in the existing House of Lords but in a more effective manner".
670
We must therefore assume that that is the authoritative justification for the changes proposed in the White Paper.
Elected members are to be introduced in order to enable the House to fulfil its functions more effectively. How? This is where we find a gaping hole in the White Paper. The same hole appeared in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. How will elected members enable this House to be more effective in carrying out its existing functions? The House is able to fulfil these functions because of the experience and expertise of its membership. The value of such a membership is, in effect, conceded by the Government in making the case for retaining an appointed element. Neither the White Paper nor the supporting documents produce any evidence to show that elected members will add value to the House in fulfilling its functions.
The supporting documents touch upon ways in which the House may be strengthened in fulfilling its functions, drawing largely on the Royal Commission, but none relates to election. If the Government want to proceed with reform, they must demonstrate how the proposals in the White Paper for an elected element will meet the criterion advanced by the Prime Minister. When the Leader of the House made his statement introducing the White Paper, it was a speech of two halves. The first half outlined the functions of this House and the second adumbrated the Government's proposals for reform. I felt that there was a part missing in the speech; the bit that actually linked the two parts—to explain how the reforms would actually deliver the functions and improve the fulfilment in terms of those functions that he so clearly adumbrated. We find exactly that gap in the White Paper.
If we are to have reform of this House, and there is a debate to be had, then consideration of reform must proceed on the basis of an informed debate. The subject is too important for anything else; and we are entitled to expect one. The White Paper that is before us is, I regret to say, no basis for an informed debate. It makes no coherent intellectual case for a part-elected House. What is before us simply will not do.
I conclude with one or two quick points in response to points already made in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, points to opinion polls. He clearly thinks that we should place great reliance on them. The logic of that is that we look forward to his voting for the reintroduction of capital punishment. My noble friend, Lord Hurd, noted that we are up against it in terms of opinion in the other place.
In terms of opinion polls the outcome depends on the question asked. There is no agreement if we look at opinion poll data in terms of different options for a reformed Chamber. As I say, it depends on the question asked. A quite extensive ICM poll last December asked:
"When it comes to making new laws in the second chamber, whose views do you think should be more important? The views of eminent people who have special knowledge or expertise, or the views of elected representatives of ordinary people?"

671
The results were, eminent people 43 per cent, and elected representatives 49 per cent. We should ask how strongly people feel about the issue. This is really not a pubs and clubs issue. Support may be broad; it is certainly not deep. We should also ask how much they know about the subject. The Wakeham commission found that those most knowledgeable about Parliament were most likely to support retention of an appointed Chamber. Certainly, when I give speeches about what the Lords does, at the end few people want to depart from the present arrangements.
We may be up against it in terms of views in another place. That is not an argument for rolling over and giving in. We should argue for what we believe is right.
10.25 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I begin by commenting on observations made by several Peers about the last election. There was indeed a low turnout, but there is more than one interpretation of the reasons for it. Might it not reflect the greater complexity of government today? The Government are seeking to be both socially responsible and economically prudent in a balanced way that ideology perhaps prevented in the past.
I welcome the pre-eminence accorded to the Commons in the White Paper. I am sure that we all agree with that, but it is fundamental. When I first arrived in your Lordships' House, I remember attending Questions and hearing that the United States had defaulted on its payments to the United Nations over several years. I have great respect for the United States, its dynamism and its achievements, but it was defaulting on those payments. Children and families in Africa were not getting clean water or advice on HIV-AIDS—the sort of support that the United Nations could provide—because of the constitutional settlement in the United States. Congress denied the money to make that possible.
I also remember the denial of President Carter's energy reforms and the denial of President Clinton's reform of the health arrangements. Many Americans are happy that their government are often incapable of governing. In many ways, it suits the affluent and reasonably well off that the government are unable to interfere in their business—they can look after themselves. It is the poorest in society who suffer when a government are hamstrung. The US obviously has a very different constitution from ours, but we have such close affinities with the US—there is indeed a special relationship between us—that it is important to bear the US experience in mind.
Constitutional experts suggest that a more likely model for us is that of the upper House in Australia. There is a fully elected, directly elected upper House, which is accorded general popular respect. That is most unusual for upper Houses: most are not popular with the public. In Australia, the upper House is respected for its ability thoroughly to revise legislation and because it will occasionally intervene in the legislative process. It has blocked the government's legislative programme at times.
672
However, I hope that your Lordships' would agree that we would not want to pursue that model. In 1975, the upper House denied a Bill of Supply. As a consequence, both Houses were dissolved and the Labor Government were not re-elected. I refer your Lordships to Meg Russell's book, Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas. She in turn quotes John Uhr, who stated that the Senate has,
"proven its capacity to bring down government and, with that power as a threat, to transform the policy substance as well as the administrative style of governments".
Meg Russell states:
"Gareth Evans, leader of government in the Senate during this period is recorded as saying that the Senate 'made my life an absolute and unequivocal misery' and that negotiating with other parties there was 'the sort of thing that made grown men weep and jump off tall buildings'.
What might happen to the Salisbury convention if the new reformed House of Lords were to begin to take on more legitimacy? The House might, from time to time, block manifesto commitments made by the Government if they were seen as contentious or controversial. It might want to be seen to stand up to government. We all enjoy twitting authority from time to time, but there might be a new force of conservatism.
I shall consider the virtues of the current House. I am reminded of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Laming on the Children Leaving Care Bill and the Care Standards Bill. He is a former director of the Social Services Inspectorate, and he brought immense insight and understanding to that Bill. He now serves as the chairperson of the investigation into the Victoria Climbiê affair. When he returns to your Lordships' House, he will have even more fabulous experience to bring to bear on legislation.
I think also of a conversation that I had with one of my noble friends and an Opposition Front-Bench Member in your Lordships' Lobby last year. The Opposition Member was praising her opposite number to the skies, saying what a competent job she did, how much on top of her brief she was and how much she admired her. I think of the noble Lord, a member of the Labour Party, who, when I asked his advice during the passage of the anti-terrorism legislation, said that he had listened to the debate on his party's proposals and was now even more confident than before that he would oppose them.
We have the virtues of independence, of listening to one another with respect, of experience and expertise in great abundance in this House. I salute the support in the White Paper for the principle of maintaining an experienced Membership in the House and its acknowledgement of the need for Peers to continue to be part-timers, thus replenishing the fund of their experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, talked about his age and the age of the House. As one of the younger Peers, I think that it is arguable that having a higher age profile than the House of Commons and having more grandparents than parents in this House is to our advantage. Peers are more mature and have, therefore, achieved most of what they wish to achieve

673
in life. They are more independent, less worried about promotion—outside the House or inside—and have the confidence of their life experience behind them, which helps them to contribute.
My concern is that there may be an unwished for dilution in the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. If the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is right in his prophecy that the public will see the proposed elected element as a mere sop, rather than a genuine attempt at democracy, there may be a call for far more radical change and a greater representative element in the House. I was reassured by the clear limits that the White Paper put on the elected element, but then I spoke to senior Members from all parts of the House, and they all told me that they expected that the House would eventually be a mostly or fully elected House if we started off down the road of election.
The Government are trying to tackle years of lack of investment in housing, education, transport and other areas. They are attempting to take on that mammoth task and at the same time to balance the books. They seem to be achieving that.
Your Lordships may recall the debate on child poverty. The recent Rowntree report on poverty indicated that last year, more than in any previous year, the indices were improving in terms of social exclusion. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the EU and our economy is doing fairly well.
However, I am concerned that if we are not careful we shall not achieve the difficult targets of reinvestment in our services. That is essential. We can make interventions in the lives of the poorest people but what would really help them are properly funded services and proper investment which will benefit us all but will most benefit the most vulnerable. If there is a hamstrung House of Commons, if unintentionally the pre-eminence of the House of Commons is undermined, it will be considerably more difficult for the Government to achieve their aims.
10.36 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, to me the debate is largely about the relationship between the executive and Parliament. We do not have in this country the separation of powers which exists in the United States and I have always argued that we have certain advantages in not proceeding along those lines. However, we need to do more in that direction than we have in the past. In our recent history, Parliament has never been so subservient to the Administration.
In 1968 there was introduced the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in which I played some part. I opposed that Bill. It was designed exclusively to create Peers. The idea was that the total number of life Peers would be 200 to 250. That is very different from today's situation. After long discussion and deliberation—after 14 days, nights and mornings because that was when Dick Crossman was introducing such changes into all the procedures—the government withdrew the Bill. After 14 days they reached only Clause 6 of a 20-clause Bill.
674
In those days, Parliament still behaved as a body which could oppose the executive. I was concerned about the patronage power of the Prime Minister as a result of that Bill. I was concerned about the distortion not just of the House of Lords but of the House of Commons, too, as Members would have been expected to line up for transfer into this House. I could see the House of Lords becoming an aldermanic Bench.
As it happened, that did not take place and I have seen the House of Lords improve considerably over the years. At that time I wanted the House of Commons to undertake a number of reforms. I wanted it to undertake reform of the Select Committee system and to examine policies which the Select Committee system would undertake. Instead of remedying the inadequacies of that time, those inadequacies have become much worse.
We have seen a real need for Parliament and the executive to be realigned. What is always needed are people of independent mind who, while obviously owing allegiance to political parties, exercise their judgment. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1964, that was the position to a greater extent than now. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, reform of the House of Lords comes from those who look to see the House of Lords remedying the defects and inadequacies of the House of Commons. That is not its job. The House of Commons should remedy its own faults. Over the years the weaknesses of the House of Commons have increased and the number of parliamentary disasters has grown. The conventional role of Members of Parliament is to present their different views with some candour, and such Members of Parliament and noble Lords are vital to the reputation of Parliament.
In my years in the House of Commons, I supported the government, but I opposed them in two important particulars. Harold Wilson was strongly against devaluation. I was the chairman of a Back-Benchers' group on economic and finance and wanted the pound to be devalued in 1964–65. He never forgave me for that. I wanted to see a withdrawal of troops East of Suez and he did forgive me for that, even though at one stage he said that our frontiers were on the Himalayas. In due course I became a member of the government. I should be rather surprised if such a thing could happen today. We have seen a change—but not only today; I cannot see that it would have happened under Mrs Thatcher either.
The model that we have here is the need for the independence of Members of this House and the modernisation of their proper role. There needs to be a new requirement, but we must not replicate the House of Commons, not because of the challenge to its powers, but because of the need for a Chamber that is less dominated by the executive. What pleases me the most is when I hear people speaking from the heart. They are not trying to prove anything here. The great advantage that we have is that this House is not the road to power, so people can speak their minds. We have better discussions and debates than in the House of Commons, not because we are more clever but

675
because Members of the other place have a different agenda. They see themselves at the foothills of power. Of course, we know that power resides there, but our advantage is that we are not in that kind of race.
We have to ask whether we can devise a House of Lords that will avoid some of the disasters of the past. What should a new, or even the present, House of Lords do about a matter such as the introduction of the poll tax? It was a disgrace and I am sure that the House of Lords today would be much more vociferous than in Margaret Thatcher's time. We would speak our minds forcefully and strongly if such an issue came up again.
What about the privatisation of British Rail? Robert Adley who was the greatest expert on railways in either House unfortunately died. He called the proposed privatisation of British Rail a "poll tax on wheels". He was right; it was a disgrace. Unfortunately he died so we were unable to have the advantage of his knowledge and understanding of railways. What would happen today? Would we be quiet and subservient even if the House of Commons were such? I think that we would be much better. One of the advantages of getting rid of so many hereditary Peers is that we have become more legitimate, and because of that we can say things in a way in which we were unable to do so before.
What about the decision on the Dome? It is a much less important matter, but nevertheless I think that we would have spoken out in a different way. The House of Lords would bring fresh and different views and contribute in a different way, in a less executive-dominated Chamber. That is one of the important matters that we have to discuss today.
The domination of the executive has increased and is continuing to do so. The power of the Whips used to be about privilege, the possibility of government office, committee membership, overseas visits, and so on. Added to that, we now see the possibility of paid appointed Peers. That is a serious matter because once we start paying new elected people to this House, they will be thinking of their electorate. They will want secretaries, special advisers, research assistants, offices and so on. If you envisage those people with us, you can imagine the kind of dominance that there would be in this place. They are in it for real. They are dealing with power in a different way from us. We would be putting sensible points forward; but they would be in the electoral system, while we were not.
One conclusion we should dismiss straightaway is the introduction of the list system, which is an abomination. In my area we had local MEPs who decided which of them would speak for each constituency. Along came the MEP to my constituency. We were outraged, and said, "We didn't choose you; you've no right to choose us". We sent him packing—quite right too! I wish that I had seen that happening in every constituency in the country. That is the kind of gumption that I want to see. If we see the list system doing that sort of thing, the outrage will be much greater. I hope that we shall be able to get rid of that kind of thinking immediately.
676
There is an important consideration here; namely, the quinquennial Act, which has already been mentioned. I remember the debates in the early 1970s when people talked about getting rid of the House of Lords. The one insuperable barrier to that was the quinquennial Act. The one super advantage that we have is that they cannot get rid of Parliament at will. That remained here. Therefore, the fact that it is not mentioned in any of the papers is an omission that I find both appalling and astonishing. I hope that that is an oversight, but we need to ensure that it does not happen again.
The power of the machine has grown. De-selection is on the agenda. Members of Parliament in the other place are thinking in terms of that: they have to keep their noses clean. They realise the problems that they have with their constituents. Indeed, recently there has been a case of someone not being included on a shortlist, and so on. We never used to see that sort of thing. So the power of the party has grown and there are dangers in that respect.
There used to be parallel paths in the Labour Party, through the National Executive Committee on one side and, on the other, through the parliamentary party. I was against that process. I felt that they were too much opposed to each other, but at least you had an alternative system. You had to have an alternative system; it was not monolithic. I hope for a better accommodation, but not a take-over. What we have seen is substantially a take-over. We have seen the whole of the political system moving in a way that I find rather sad.
As I have always said, an important aspect of all of this is the power of the Back-Bencher in the House of Commons. I made use of that power. I always believed that the task and power of the Back-Bencher was to look as he was running to escape from the net and he pulled back. That is the way to exercise the maximum amount of power. On occasion I did so, although perhaps not as much as I should have liked. That is something that a Back-Bencher can do. Unfortunately, with the size of the majority and the kind of Back-Benchers that we now have we have lost that power. Francis Pym said that the most important point is the size of the majority. If you have a majority of about 50, 60, or 70, the power of the government Back-Bencher is much increased. That has the greatest restraining effect upon the government of the day. That is a most important aspect.
The independence of Members will not be obtained by election. If the election is controlled, that independence is a myth. But there is a paradox here. An elected element can be more easily controlled by party than can an appointed one because there must be another election. An appointed element is for life and you cannot do much about it. This House should have no place for such an elected element if it is to be subjected to executive selection by the list system, or by some other system that has the same kind of results. If that were to happen, it would not lead to the reform of the House of Lords; it would lead to its emasculation.

677
Furthermore, the worst of all the proposed changes would be anything which increased the power of the executive still further. Better to introduce no changes than to invite such an outcome. My noble friends should he aware that much work has yet to be done. I wait to see it.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, my aim in intervening at this stage of the debate is simply to add my voice to those of the many noble Lords—indeed, I suspect that they are in the majority—who have already spoken against the principle of introducing elected Members into the House. Like other noble Lords, I do not accept the argument that election is necessary in order to create legitimacy or that it has any role in increasing the effectiveness of the second Chamber.
Many noble Lords have made the point that we need to look at the democracy of Parliament and at the Constitution as a whole rather than to consider this Chamber in isolation. Every noble Lord who has spoken has accepted the primacy of the first Chamber. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, who spoke earlier, I believe that the biggest danger lying behind the primacy of the first, elected Chamber, is elective dictatorship; the dictatorship of large majorities and tightly whipped votes. In such a system, the democracy of Parliament as a whole is undoubtedly enhanced rather than diminished by the presence of a second Chamber that is truly independent and can delay legislation and make the first Chamber think again.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth argued that elected Members would add no value to this Chamber. I would go further and argue that in practice such elected Members would he likely to diminish the independence of the House. Members elected on a party system inevitably would have obligations towards their party manifestos. They would also have obligations to the party which selected them, as well as to the party workers who would have worked on their behalf. Many would seek election to this House as part of a career plan that would tie them to their party and enhance objectives they might have in mind for a later stage. Having such Members, aside from the fact of their political ties, would I suspect inevitably diminish their level of independence and would change the climate of the House, a climate so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. No doubt that climate would change if Members were introduced who would bring a far more party political nature to our debates and interventions.
Against those disadvantages, I agree with many other noble Lords that the proposal to introduce appointed Members of the House of Lords is that it could bring in a different kind of individual; that is, people who could bring to the House expertise from the jobs they have outside the world of politics, as well as individuals who in many cases would not be willing to stand for election to public office.
678
While many of us are in debt to those who give a high proportion of their time to this House on a voluntary basis, I subscribe fully to the argument that we do not need all Members of the House to be full-time or professional politicians. Indeed we benefit from being a House of part-timers and from the many Members who contribute and vote only when they have a particular knowledge of or interest in the subject matter under debate. Such a House creates a greater challenge for the Government than the other place where there is a fixed number of full-time Members. Thus, in the Lobbies, the arithmetic is predetermined, whatever the subject and whatever the arguments that have been put forward.
The weakest argument for reform is that which states that this House should seek to reflect populist or fashionable opinions. If the House of Lords has any role, it is to serve as a bastion or a bulwark against fashionable tides of opinion and to speak out and argue the case for the unconventional or the unfamiliar.
I remind noble Lords that there have been times in history when fashionable opinion has held, for example, that the world was flat, that witches should be ducked and that particular religions should he persecuted. Fashionable opinions are not always right and can, as we have seen at various times in history, be manipulated by people who would be dictators. A House that is not modelled on fashionable opinion has an essential role in democracy as a bastion, a bulwark, against fashionable opinion when that opinion gets things wrong. To argue for modernisation as a driving force risks throwing away many of the linkages to history and to conventions that, once turned away, cannot be easily replaced or reinvented. We should do so at our peril.
My experience of this House is that the Government do not always lose votes. In fact they rarely lose votes simply because the massed ranks of the Opposition turn out against them. The Government lose votes in this House because they cannot get their own supporters to turn out and vote for them. That was true under the previous government when, despite their numerical majority, they lost votes in this House on important issues when they could not carry the conviction of their own Back-Benchers. That is a part of the benefit of the conventions and independence of the House as it is currently constituted.
It follows that I would favour relatively minor changes to the status quo. Certainly changes, in the way advocated, to limit the Prime Minister's powers of appointment, capping the total number of Members, having some rule about the way in which new Members are appointed in accordance with ratios at previous elections and strengthening the appointments commission would all help.
But it also follows that I—like many other noble Lords, I suspect, from what has been said today—would oppose any element of a Bill that results from this debate that opens the door to elections in order to bow to some false notion of democracy. With respect to some of my noble friends on this side of the House,

679
I would also deeply oppose any proposal which seeks to further increase the elected representation from that which the Government have proposed.
10.57 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, it is important that, despite the large number of speakers in the debate, we should make available our views from all parts of the House before stage two of the important constitutional reform is concluded. That is why, as a relatively new independent Cross-Bench life Peer but a regular attender both in the Chamber and in committees, I intervene now. We are at the end of a long feast of speeches. At the end of the feast, I hope that what I say will he considered not as cold rice pudding but as at least warm apple pie.
My first point is that, having set up the Royal Commission and received its excellent report, we should be cautious about moving away from its recommendations. In general, that is a principle that we should follow. But I do not entirely share all the criticism that has been made today of the Government's White Paper. I feel that many of the arguments in it are clearly argued and that where they differ from the Royal Commission they generally have reasons for doing so. Of course, that is not to say that the Government are always right.
I wish to make two general points and then to respond to the open questions set out in paragraph 96 of the White Paper. The two general points are these. First, although we are moving to a further stage of reform, it is, for me, very important that we should not prejudice, inadvertently or by accident, the notable strengths of the current House—that is to say, the great diversity of expert knowledge in different fields; the thoroughness of our scrutiny and, where necessary, amendment of draft legislation; the balanced nature of our debates; the good reputation of the work and reports of the Select Committees; and, last but not least, the support which the public gives to the work of this House. When I arrived in the House, I was quite amazed to find how many letters I received from the public, and how many of them were supportive of the House. That was quite a surprise for me.
Secondly, I want the reform to increase the public perception of this House as an essential and integral part of Parliament as a whole. We know the value of the role of this second Chamber; and the Clerk of the Parliaments—whom I congratulate on his knighthood—reminds us in various reports that we work as long and as hard, or longer and harder, than most parliaments in scrutinising draft legislation and in holding the executive to account. But the public, or many of them, still see this House not as a workplace—although it is that—but more as a traditional and privileged place, more Coronation Coach than Coronation Street.
I am not in favour of abandoning tradition—it is good for everyone to carry a little of our history around with them—but I do want the reform to strengthen the feeling among the public that this House, like the other place, is their Parliament. That is
680
why I am in favour of having some elected Members. The figure of 120 in the White Paper is reasonable. That is also why I am in favour of their election oil the basis of the nations and regions of our country, as that will tend to reinforce the feeling among the voters that these Members are their Members. The arguments for elected Members have been made in the Royal Commission report. I am slightly surprised that some of those who speak in favour of elected Members want them to be rather half-hearted, rather at a distance. They want cats with no claws, but, of course, that is not what they will get. If we have elected Members, they will be operational in relation to those who elected them.
I turn now to the specific questions posed in paragraph 96 of the White Paper. The balance between political and independent Members seems broadly right, as does the balance between about 240 elected and independent Members on the one hand, and a maximum of 330 nominated political Members on the other. The 330 should indeed be a maximum. I should have preferred—I believe that I am in the minority—a House smaller than 600 Members. But we are where we are, and I am well aware of the difficulty and the time needed to move down from the present figure. It is the arithmetic of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot—if the European Union allows us to use that phrase any longer.
To have regional elected Members is a completely new step. We have to be sure that the choice of timing, the method of election and the term of membership get off to a good start. I favour elections simultaneously with the United Kingdom parliamentary election, because I want the public to see the election of these Members as an election to Parliament equivalent in principle to the election of Members in the of her place. For the same reason, the term of office should in my view he one parliamentary term, with a possibility of re-election. I know that I am again in the minority on that point, but it is the way I see the potential introduction of elected Members into this House.
The method of election is extremely important. I am strongly opposed to the closed list system. I did not like it when it first came in, for other reasons; I do not like it at all now, and I hope that we can have a system which ensures that the public cannot say afterwards that it was all rigged beforehand, they did not have any choice and that is how it came out. We must avoid that at all costs.
The appointed political Members are not quite in the same position as the elected Members, and I see no difficulty over a difference in the length of term of elected and appointed Members. I do not have strong views on the length of term. I should be content with a term of 10 years. I bear in mind that that could give an annual turnover of about 33, which could be useful in re-balancing the political membership after one election. This calculation is also partly linked with the question of whether or not Members of this House could retire or resign. I cannot see any reason why there should be any objection to retirement or resignation.

681
The independent Members appointed after the reform could perhaps have the same term as the appointed political Members, but there is an important difference, which has been referred to in the debate. Some of the political appointees might reasonably expect reappointment, if that was agreed in the system, but the reappointment of an independent appointed Member would be highly unlikely, in view of the competing claims on the appointments commission. The term for an independent appointed Member therefore needs careful consideration, because in practice it would be a fixed term without reappointment.
The Government have asked whether we should continue the present system under which Members of the House receive reimbursement for expenses that they have incurred when attending the House, but no salary. The present system does not reimburse all the costs associated with membership of the House, such as if a Member lives outside London but has to maintain a London flat because of membership. On balance, I support the continuation of the present system rather than a salaried system.
Changes have been proposed for how this House deals with secondary legislation. I hope that the Opposition will not accept that we have to choose between a system under which we can refuse a statutory instrument—that is the current system—or one under which we can amend it. If we are making changes as important as those that are foreseen for the House, I do not understand why we should not have a
682
system under which this House could decide to accept, to refuse or to send back a statutory instrument for a limited period. That would be a change, but it is not a serious change against the interests of the other place. It would probably be considered to be against the interests of some bureaucrats or against the interests of the Government at times, but it is not against the interests of Parliament. Now that the Pandora's box has been opened, I hope that we will let everything out.
Finally, I support the position of the noble Viscount. Lord Bledisloe, on the independent quota. It should be for independent Peers, not for wandering albatrosses from political parties. They may be excellent albatrosses, but they should not count towards the independent quota. By independents, I mean those who have been appointed by the appointments commission or who have signed or could sign a declaration that they are independent. That should apply in the transitional period as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons: read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Decommissioning
  Northern Ireland: Decommissioning
  Parliament: "Webcasting" of Proceedings
  Parliament: "Webcasting" of Proceedings
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Ministerial Travel: Hire of Aeroplanes
  Ministerial Travel: Hire of Aeroplanes
  Asylum Seekers: Deaths
  Asylum Seekers: Deaths
  Prison Service Standards
  Prison Service Standards
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Faith Schools: Joint Activities
  Faith Schools: Joint Activities
  Greek Air Force
  Greek Air Force
  Railway Stations: Future Development of Sites
  Railway Stations: Future Development of Sites
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Silverstone
  Silverstone
  Traffic Pollution
  Traffic Pollution
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome