Sitting of 18 June 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Mental Health
    Mr. Edward Davey: What plans he has to implement the proposals in the Wanless report to create a world-class mental health service; and if he will make a statement. [59118]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The NHS plan and the national service framework for mental health will, when implemented, go a long way to creating a world-class mental health service, as proposed in the Wanless report. Targets set out in the NHS plan are on schedule to be reached by 2004. Details of our additional investment will be given in due course.
    Mr. Davey: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In implementing the Wanless proposals for a world-class mental health service, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that users and carers have a much greater role in setting local priorities and strategies? Has he shared my experience that in many aspects of mental health, including minor and moderate illnesses, users and carers can help to build cost-effective community self-help solutions, if they have resources and support? Will he ensure that the forthcoming mental health Bill places a new statutory duty on NHS trusts dealing with mental health services to involve users and carers far more extensively in the planning of local services?
    Mr. Milburn: The general proposition that the hon. Gentleman advances is perfectly reasonable. If we want a service—including a mental health service—that is properly built around the needs of the people who use it, they should have a greater say in how the service is provided. That goes for their carers, too. People caring for those with a mental health problem do a sterling job: without them, the NHS could not do its work.
    The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the provisions of the forthcoming mental health Bill, but I accept the proposition, which applies equally to mental health services and to the national health service in general.
    Liz Blackman: Wanless anticipated an increase in the prescribing of anti-psychotic atypicals for
    136
    mental health patients with schizophrenia. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on its timely approval of the guidance? Not only will that decision make those drugs more available to patients with schizophrenia and lower the cost of in-patient care but, more important, it will drastically reduce the terrible long-term and irreversible side effects suffered by so many schizophrenia patients currently taking typicals.
    Mr. Milburn: NICE' s decision has been broadly welcomed, not only within the service but by users and carers. The atypical anti-psychotics are certainly a real step forward, not only for their safety and lack of side effects but for the good that they do. NICE is often in the news for—as it were—the wrong reasons. There is much criticism of NICE, which has a difficult job, but people should stand back and consider what it has done: it has made available more—or more cost-effective—services in the national health service. It has driven up the drugs bill in the health service, but I do not think that is a bad thing if it means that we are getting more cost-effective and more clinically effective treatments to more patients—and, in this case, that is certainly so.
    Mr. Robert Key: But we are getting less effective treatment to fewer patients. On 29 April, I wrote to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to point out that the brand new mental health service in Avon and Wiltshire has inherited a £500,000 deficit; that clinical judgment is that GPs cannot provide the necessary service; that the rehabilitation service is under threat; and that there is a six-month wait for an appointment with the alcohol and drug advisory service. The good lady who is the chairman of that trust—a very nice Labour councilor—came to see me in Salisbury to apologise, but why should she take the flak when the resources are not in the service?
    Mr. Milburn: I am absolutely delighted to hear that there are such creatures as nice Labour councillors—I bet the hon. Gentleman was even more surprised.
    On the overall position with mental health services, of course there are real problems and my hon. Friend the Minister and I are the first to acknowledge them. However, the national health service and mental health services are moving forward; there is more capacity than there was.
    The issue for the hon. Gentleman is extremely straightforward, however: if he wants his local health service to expand, he needs to commit more resources to the national health service and agree to do what we have done—to put more money into the national health service over a longer period than has ever been done before. I bet my bottom dollar that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who voted against the extra money for the national health service.
    Roger Casale: As someone whose mother worked in the psychiatric unit at Kingston hospital, I can tell my right hon. Friend that mental health services have increased by leaps and bounds under the present Government. South West London and St. George's mental health NHS trust is a pioneer in the field of care for mentally ill people. It is a centre of excellence

    137
    and an example of the best practice that, with the support, money, investment and reforms that the Government are putting in, can be spread around the country.
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. As I go around the country visiting mental health or other services, I am the first to acknowledge that there are considerable problems. Indeed, it is better to be straight about such things and to say that it will take some time for the problems to be put right. However, what is completely wrong is to say—as the Opposition do—that there is no progress in the national health service. We should be clear about why they say that: they want to run down the national health service. They want to see it fail, whereas we want it to succeed.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Is not the task for the Secretary of State to match the rhetoric with action? How can the Government hope to create a world-class mental health service when the experience on the ground is one of service reductions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) says? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the Buckinghamshire Association for Mental Health wrote to me saying that
    "not only is there now no new money but there is less funding available and therefore service cuts"?
    I received a letter from Manchester about cuts of £820,000 in mental health services. Cuts are planned in Shropshire. In north Cumbria—my Chief Whip gave this letter to me—there is talk of the patients counselling service being under threat. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy said that that was
    "bad for patients, bad for doctors".
    So why are there service reductions all over the country, despite Ministers talking about money going in and improvements being made? Is not that just another case of Labour not telling the truth about what is happening in this country?
    Mr. Milburn: No, it is not; it is a case of the Conservatives running down the national health service. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that almost 500 extra secure beds have been created in the health service and that there are more than 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds and 180 extra assertive outreach teams because of the extra investment in the NHS. Finally, more than 50 crisis resolution teams are available in communities throughout the country, dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in the community, precisely because of the extra investment in the NHS. There is a simple choice for the country: either we continue to invest—as we promise to do not for one year, but for five or six years at record levels—or we do what the Conservatives now propose and cut investment in the NHS.

    National Alcohol Strategy
    Nick Harvey: When he expects to publish a national alcohol strategy. [59119]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The NHS plan makes clear our commitment to implement a strategy to address alcohol misuse by 2004, and we remain on target.
    Nick Harvey: I thank the Minister for her reply, but during the four years in which the alcohol strategy has been imminent, the Government have pursued a number of other priorities. Does she accept that, during that time alcohol services on the ground have been visibly disintegrating? Is she aware that, in my constituency, we have one long-term counsellor and two suppliers of specialist accommodation to cover a population of more than 150,000? Does she share my concern that 39,000 admissions annually to accident and emergency departments result from alcohol misuse, that it is causing untold misery in the home through jobs lost and that the Treasury is losing revenue because of those lost jobs? Will she now commit herself to a timetable for the strategy and make absolutely certain that there is no slippage on it? Does she accept that alcohol misuse has been wrongly falling down the list of priorities?
    Ms Blears: I think that I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have set out a timetable in the NHS plan to implement the strategy by 2004, and that we are on target to meet that timetable. I certainly do not accept that services are falling apart. Primary care trusts spend about £95 million a year on commissioning alcohol treatment services, but this is not just a matter of treatment services; it is crucially also about prevention, and therefore we have been investing an extra £23 million on substance misuse education in our schools—drugs, alcohol and tobacco—to try to send out the message that it is better to prevent those problems from occurring in the first place. We have also sent out a very effective sensible drinking message to try to prevent some of the binge drinking, which is clearly a problem.
    I recognise the fact that accident and emergency departments are caused tremendous problems by people who turn up drunk. That is why we have a zero tolerance policy towards any kind of violence against anyone in the NHS. We encourage prosecutions against people who turn up drunk and assault people in accident and emergency departments. Prison sentences have been imposed recently on people who have behaved in that unacceptable way. Clearly, there is a problem with alcohol misuse in this country, but it is not simply a matter of having strategies; it is about tackling the problem on the ground.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that alcohol causes far more damage to people's lives and the economy than illicit drugs and that it is implicated in a wide range of crimes? Will she contact our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the impact of alcohol on crime? Does she also agree that a more urgent strategy than she suggests is desirable?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right: it is not a matter of action against drugs or action on alcohol; it is a matter of tackling both issues in our communities and in our society. The Home Office has issued an action plan on alcohol-related crime, and the Department of Health is fully engaged in those issues, too. It is also a question of treatment. About 500 treatment centres in this country concentrate not just on drug treatment but on alcohol

    139
    treatment. A strong case exists for bringing together some of our policies on substance misuse. My hon. Friend makes some extremely constructive points, and I reassure him that the Department of Health takes these issues extremely seriously. That is why we want prevention and treatment, especially in respect of the misuse of alcohol and binge drinking by young people, for whom it has been shown that brief interventions by health professionals can have an impact. We are currently training general practitioners and nurses in those brief interventions to get people out of the cycle of binge drinking—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman gets the point.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Lady spoke of the importance of strategies on the ground and gave a long list of policies, but she excluded complementary and alternative medicine, which must surprise the House given the effectiveness of complementary therapies in reducing the problems of those who suffer from alcohol abuse and drugs problems in particular. No doubt she will have received reports of how therapeutic touch and the use of herbal remedies can reduce the time that it takes a heroin addict to come off heroin by about 50 per cent. Many clinics up and down the country now use these different treatments. When will the Government put their weight behind the range of therapies that are available and make sure that they are available not just for middle-class people but for those who are very badly off and who are addicted?
    Ms Blears: Question Time would not be the same without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I shall not be taking up what was perhaps an offer of therapeutic touch, but I shall consider it in due course.
    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: complementary therapies can be useful for a whole range of conditions, and he has raised these issues on many occasions. He will be aware that work is ongoing in the Department to consider the effectiveness of complementary and alternative therapies to see whether we can provide a wider choice for people, in relation not just to drug and alcohol problems but to a whole range of conditions. It is important that the research is ongoing, and we will have an opportunity later this afternoon to discuss further issues in this area.
    Glenda Jackson: Despite what the Government have done and are doing through the national alcohol strategy, there is a perceptible belief among those who have to deal with the victims of alcohol abuse, day in and day out, that such abuse is not as high up the list of Government priorities as they would wish. Is more than one Department still engaged in the strategy? Special attention must be given to the increasing problem of teenage alcohol abusers.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the strategy must engage many Departments, because it is not simply about picking up the pieces through long-term health treatment: crucially, it also involves education and the Home Office. I assure her that consultation on the strategy is already under way across the relevant
    140
    Departments. We hope to come up with a strategy that does not simply consider one aspect of the problem but considers it across the community.
    There is a particular problem with young people—my hon. Friend will be aware of the chief medical officer's recent report on the increase in liver cirrhosis, especially among young women. We therefore need to direct our education policies in a much more targeted and focused way to make sure that we reach the young people who are increasingly the victims of binge drinking, which, in some cases, is out of control.

    Hospices
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What proposals he has to increase his Department's funding for hospices. [59120]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the honour that he received at the weekend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sure that it is a timely acknowledgement of his work over many years in Parliament and elsewhere in the community.
    The Government have pledged in the NHS cancer plan that funding for specialist palliative care services, including hospices, will increase by £50 million a year by 2004. We announced recently that the full basic salary costs of specialist registrars in palliative care in voluntary hospices will now be met centrally, and we clarified that the NHS should not charge hospices for support services, such as pathology and ambulance services, and that agreed drug costs should also be reimbursed by the NHS.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Minister and the House for their generous and kind sentiments.
    May I advise the House that, 12 years ago, my wife, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and I jointly opened East Cheshire hospice in the presence of the then Bishop of Chester? Sadly, the council of the hospice very recently announced that it will have to close four of its 15 beds, because it can no longer afford to pay the staff necessary to man a 15-bed hospice. Will the Government look at the matter urgently and make proposals to speed up the release of additional funds to the hospice movement—not least the East Cheshire hospice—because the beds and the services that hospices provide are urgently needed?
    Ms Blears: I thank everyone in the hospice movement up and down the country for their tremendous work, which has made the United Kingdom a world leader in palliative care. I am aware that East Cheshire hospice has an excellent, nationally recognised facility for specialist child bereavement counselling.
    In 2001ߝ02, the hospice received funding of £292,000, which increased this year to £302,000, and an additional £20,000 is available from the palliative care strategy funds. Therefore, there has been a 10 per cent. uplift, but I acknowledge the increasing pressures on hospice services. I shall certainly ensure that we see whether we can do more to ensure that the increased investment announced as part of the cancer plan reaches front-line services, where it is desperately needed. Statutory funding

    141
    for hospices has increased in by 14 per cent. over the past two years. We are making progress, but I acknowledge that there is much more to do.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the excellent work of Rainbows children's hospice, which is in my constituency but which looks after the east midlands. Is she aware of the difficulties faced by such hospices, which receive only about 10 per cent. of their funding from the NHS, with the remainder coming from the generous support of people in Leicestershire and the east midlands? Hospices find it difficult to work with the increased number of primary care trusts, so will she ensure that a co-ordinated approach is taken to the problems? It would be easy for a small number of hospices to drop out of the system, because their PCT might think that they were not absolutely necessary in any particular financial year. That, of course, would have an enormous knock-on effect on the fund-raising activities of places such as Rainbows.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the voluntary sector needs to be properly co-ordinated to make sure that its voice is heard in its negotiations with PCTs. We gave the national hospice movement funding of £54,000 last year to make sure that the voluntary sector's voice is heard and that PCTs are fully aware of its needs. PCTs are now drawing up proper service level agreements to ensure a more formal relationship between the hospice sector and the NHS.
    Children's hospices are relatively new. They have developed in the past 20 years and are now getting on to a proper footing. Increasingly, however, more funds are available through the "quality protects" programme and through the carers grant, which funds short-term care in children's hospices. The situation is improving.
    Lady Hermon: Will the Minister kindly explain what progress has been made in exempting hospices, such as those run by Marie Curie Cancer Care, from VAT?
    Ms Blears: The issue of irrecoverable VAT that faces cancer charities, such as Macmillan, and the voluntary sector as a whole is currently being considered by Customs and Excise and the Treasury. Macmillan has specifically brought the matter to my attention and I am currently in discussions and considering the issue extremely closely. I know of the difficult effect on the future investment decisions that Macmillan is considering, and I am keen and anxious that we enter into close negotiations with the Treasury and Customs and Excise to see whether progress can be made.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on the additional support that is being given to the hospice movement, but may I appeal to her to release money immediately? About £60 million has been requested to help to save some of the beds that will be closed if additional resources are not available within a short time. The PCTs cannot provide additional resources at the moment and Wakefield hospice in my constituency faces the threat of bed closures if additional resources
    142
    cannot be made available. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend to look generously at the release of additional funding immediately.
    Ms Blears: I am aware of the excellent work of Wakefield hospice and of how much that hospice is valued by the local community. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), there is concern about getting the funds announced in the cancer plan, which are in the NHS baseline, through to the front line. I intend to see whether we can put further mechanisms in place to strengthen the release and availability of that money. However, my hon. Friend should also be aware that the moneys for palliative care services are not confined to hospices. Importantly, they are also used to provide care at home and in the community—services that are increasingly valued. People ought to have a choice in such delicate and sensitive matters.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does not the Minister see the paradox? The Government might be increasing the amount of money for hospices—albeit too slowly to stop bed closures and to prevent them from refusing to take some terminally ill people because of a lack of money—but from next April they will increase the burden on hospices through national insurance contributions. Has the Minister calculated what it will cost the hospice movement to pay those increased contributions?
    Ms Blears: National insurance contributions are not simply an issue for hospices—
    Mr. Burns: How much?
    Ms Blears: I take the point. National insurance contributions will be an issue for many organisations that contract with the health service. We have said that primary care trusts need to take account in their commissioning arrangements of the fact that hospices and other organisations will face increased costs. That needs to be included in their negotiations for the services that will be available to them. We are contemplating that matter, which will be dealt with by the primary care trusts.
    Mr. Burns: How much?
    Ms Blears: I understand that it is 0.7 per cent. of the current funding for hospices.

    Digital Hearing Aids
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the availability of digital hearing aids on the NHS. [59121]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We are committed to extending the benefits of digital hearing aids provided as part of a modernised service. We have invested more than £30 million in the modernising hearing aids services project over the past three years. This will bring the number of sites providing the service to 50 by the end of this financial year, with a

    143
    further 15 ready to start from April 2003. By the end of April this year, the services had fitted more than 30,000 digital hearing aids.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank the Minister for that response; it will be welcome news to my constituents. However, can she say when the hearing aids will be available and whether her Department plans to issue guidance to PCTs on funding modernised hearing aids so that national roll-out can proceed as quickly as possible? Will she comment on the steps she has taken to ensure that there are sufficient trained audiology staff to deliver the service in all regions?
    Jacqui Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend is pleased and reassured to hear that Wirral hospital is part of the second wave of those included in the project. The project management team, which is managed on behalf of the Department by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, has contacted each of the 30 sites that will join the project this calendar year and is in the process of visiting each service.
    To assess the current service—obtaining, for example, details of the sites involved, staffing and information technology needs—the team will discuss the new service and implement the timetable for modernisation, including the timetables to ensure that new technological systems and new staff training are in place so that the necessary staff are available to fit digital hearing aids. I assure my hon. Friend that the first of the new-wave sites will be fitting digital hearing aids by the beginning of October and all 30 will be fitting them by the end of March 2003.
    Mr. James Gray: Would the Minister care to tell the House when VAT first became payable on digital hearing aids?
    Jacqui Smith: The important point is that whereas a Tory Government would introduce charges, when, under this Government, people receive a hearing aid on the NHS, it is free.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: The NHS is the largest purchaser of hearing aids in the whole world, so it can get a good deal by bulk-buying digital hearing aids, which reinforces my hon. Friend's point. Is she aware, however, that some PCTs do not provide their own hearing aids but buy them from trusts outside their local area? Even when those neighbouring trusts are within the new wave and are providing digital hearing aids, they are not available to people who live outside the trust area. It is therefore vital that the roll-out continues. Will the Minister tell the House the time scale for the national roll-out so that we know when those services will be made available to people who do not live in an area where the PCT currently provides them? Some 4 million people could benefit from that.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the purchasing power of the NHS. We have worked very closely with the RNID on contracting, and we have had some success in reducing the price of hearing aids to the NHS, ensuring that we will be able to develop that roll-out as quickly as possible.
    My hon. Friend will know that introducing a modernised hearing aid service is not just about changing from an analogue to a digital hearing aid. It is also about
    144
    ensuring that the new methods necessary for fitting digital hearing aids are in place. That is why we are working with the Institute of Hearing Research to evaluate the current programme, so as to ensure that we are able to roll it out as quickly as possible, while giving the best service to people who will receive digital hearing aids in future.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister confirm that by next March it will still be the case that only one third of people in England will have access to digital hearing aids through their local hospitals? When will the national roll-out be completed so that all our constituents have access to that vital service?
    Jacqui Smith: I can confirm that in just three years it has been possible to ensure that digital hearing aids will be available on the NHS for a third of patients. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), however, this is not a simple process of shifting from one type of hearing aid to another; it is important that the trained staff and necessary infrastructure are in place so that we can make sure that people get the quality service from the NHS that they expect. I certainly want the success of the pilot scheme to be rolled out as quickly as possible, and clearly we will consider investment for that as part of the spending review, but we must ensure that quality is maintained as we roll out the service.

    Anti-TNF Treatments
    Mr. Mark Todd: What steps he is taking to secure availability of anti-TNF treatments in line with NICE recommendations. [59122]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): On 22 March, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended the use of anti-TNF drugs for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Primary care trusts have been directed to provide the appropriate funding for NICE-recommended treatments. However, supplies of one of those drugs, Etanercept, have been restricted worldwide since the beginning of 2001 due to high demand and limited production capacity. I am glad to say that those capacity restrictions are now being addressed by the manufacturer, and in the meantime rheumatologists in the NHS have established arrangements that aim to ensure equitable access to the treatment for as many new patients as possible.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that it is a relief to my constituents as well as those of many other hon. Members. May I question the process by which PCTs are having to deal with the consequences of NICE judgments? One difficulty is that they have to anticipate not only when the judgment will be made but guess what it will be, and it may not be clear what the outcome of a NICE investigation will be. They also have to take account of the implications of a judgment for the financial year for which they have budgeted, and dealing with those financial consequences leads to inequity and the slow delivery of some of those judgments to our constituents.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those observations. He is right; we are undertaking a new process, and when NICE issues its recommendations and guidance for new treatments, it is important that the arrangements are in place to allow primary care trusts to respond reasonably to those judgments. That is why, under the directions, we have given PCTs three months to make the appropriate funding available. The key to making the policy work is to keep the investment flowing into the national health service. That provides the practical means whereby primary care trusts can respond to the recommendations of the national institute. The simple choice facing us in the House is to build up the NHS, as the Government want to do, or run it down, which Opposition Members want to do.

    Medical Training
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on the number of training places established for students who wish to become doctors and surgeons. [59123]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Between 1999 and 2001 almost 2,150 new medical school places were announced in England, an increase of 57 per cent. over 1997 medical school intakes. That is the largest increase in medical school places since the NHS was established, and includes, as my hon. Friend knows, four new medical schools—the first for many decades.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Leicester Warwick medical school, which was founded in March 2000 and which next year will take in 400 students, playing its part in reversing the decline in available places under the previous Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that there should be close links between the universities and the new structures in the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: I very much welcome the establishment of the new Leicester Warwick medical school in my hon. Friend's area. It is one of a number of medical schools that have been established. Not only will it provide an expansion in the number of doctors in the future, but the new medical schools have been innovative in the way that they are recruiting their medical students. For example, they are trying to broaden the social base of the medical students whom they take in. That means that in future the NHS will have a broader range of doctors from a broader range of backgrounds. That is good news for the NHS, but most importantly, it is good news for NHS patients.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Secretary of State accept that students need teachers, and that extra medical students need extra consultants to teach them? Can he explain why, in London medical schools, academic consultant posts and other training posts are being lost because of cuts? Can he also explain why he does not use the opportunity of the extra funding to expand the number of consultant posts available to teach, by allowing doctors currently languishing in staff grade and trust grade posts—mainly ethnic minority,
    146
    black and Asian doctors—at least to apply to re-enter training to become consultants and help to train the consultants of the future?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are some problems in some medical schools in some parts of London, but not in all. That comes about because of the uneven distribution of a growing resource as a consequence of the research assessment exercise that now takes place in universities, so that we get the money into the universities capable of best using it.
    When we agreed with the individual medical schools—for example, the one in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt)—that they would take on extra medical students, each and every one of those schools gave an assurance that it would be able to recruit the teaching staff necessary to train properly the doctors of the future. They have fulfilled that assurance. In each and every year since 1999, the number of medical students coming into the new medical schools has exceeded the plans for each of those medical schools. That is very good news indeed.
    There are some issues to consider, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be meeting the Minister for Lifelong Learning in the Department for Education and Skills and representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss some of them. If there is more that we can do, we will do it. Again, we come back to the question of investment. We believe that we should put more investment into medical student training and medical schools, and we have committed the resources for it. The question for the Opposition is whether they are prepared to match that level of investment.
    Hugh Bayley: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on choosing York and Hull universities for one of the new medical schools? They have just published their first prospectus. The university of York has consistently come in the top 10 universities for the quality of research. It already has a world-class track record in research in health economics, epidemiology and social policy, which it will integrate with the clinical studies in the medical school. May I offer my right hon. Friend an open invitation to stop off in York some time when he is on the train from London to his Darlington constituency to meet the new dean of the medical school, Professor Gillespie, and see what York will be offering?
    Mr. Milburn: After that fulsome tribute. I dare not say no, so I suppose that I had better take up the offer. The Hull York medical school has a very good reputation, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, and is one of the new wave of medical schools. It has been doing a very good job so far, and I am sure that it will continue to do so. As a consequence of the expansion in the number of medical school places, almost 1,700 extra medical students are being trained as future doctors for the national health service. That is an important break with the past, when adequate investment did not go into medical schools, causing the major shortages that we still experience today. We now have an opportunity to put that right.
    Tim Loughton: How can the medical profession have any confidence in the Government's headline commitment to recruit 15,000 new

    147
    doctors by 2008, when the Council of Heads of Medical Schools reports that 80 per cent. of the medical schools that it has surveyed are having to freeze the academic staff recruitment needed to train those doctors, and when the BMA has reported that there are already vacancies for 79 professors and more than 320 lecturers in those medical schools? We now hear that the Secretary of State wants a new medical educational standards board that is answerable directly to him and not to Parliament. The document containing the proposal is described by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons as
    "potentially the most sinister document to emerge from this government."
    As the BMA has asked, do the Government really want to deliver 15,000 more doctors of the future. or is that just a sop to the political media?
    Mr. Milburn: It is true what they say: empty vessels make the most noise. This is an Opposition who have precisely nothing to say, no policy to talk about and no resources to commit. Indeed, the one policy that they have is the one that they do not want to talk about: charging patients for their care. Forget all this talk about caring, compassionate conservatism—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear about the Minister's policies.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I welcome the figures that my right hon. Friend announced a moment ago. Does he recognise that in some parts of the country, because of the failure to train enough doctors a few years ago, prior to the change of Government in 1997, we will have serious shortages of doctors until the new ones who are now training are fully qualified and take their place in the national health service? Are the Government prepared to take action, especially in areas where there are shortages, to ensure that the short-term gap is filled until the new doctors to whom he referred are on line?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Figures that were, I think, published under the previous Government show that in the four or five years up to 1996ߝ97, the number of doctors in training for family practice and to become GPs fell by about 44 per cent. That number fell for five consecutive years. Since Labour came to office, the number has grown in every single year and by 20 per cent. This is a long-term business, and as my hon. Friend rightly says, that means that there is a need in the short term. When we can get suitably qualified applicants to come to this country from abroad, that is what we should do.
    I can report to the House that in respect of the effort that is being led by Sir Magdi Yacoub—there could be no better ambassador for the national health service—although we expected about 50 international fellows from Europe, America and Australia to come in the first wave and work in the national health service, 400 have applied. I think that 200 have now been through the medical royal college standard assessment process and a number of them are now being appointed to posts throughout the country. That is very good news for hospitals, but most importantly of all, it means that we can get more treatments more quickly to more NHS patients.

    Suicide
    Peter Bottomley: If he will make a statement on the recent trend in the incidence of suicide; and what assessment he has made of the prospects for achieving his target for its reduction.[59125]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We have set a challenging target to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least a fifth by the year 2010. The target is monitored with a three-year moving average from a baseline using 1995ߝ96ߝ97 figures of 9.1 deaths per 100,000 population. The latest three-year average available is for 1998ߝ99ߝ2000, which shows a level of 9.4 deaths per 100,000 population. While that is disappointing, the single year rate for 1999 and 2000, following the announcement of the targeted action, fell and is now lower than in 1995. We published a national suicide strategy for consultation in April and will continue to work to ensure that the target is met and lives are saved.
    Peter Bottomley: The Minister will have the backing of Members on both sides of the House in trying to cope with the consequences of the misery, caused mainly by depression, felt by adolescents and people in their early adult years. The fluctuating figures from one year to the next are not important, but will the Minister ensure that there are specialist centres and that there is a greater understanding of what is normal mental health for young people and what is abnormal, and of what people can do to get help?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made an important and sensible point. It is certainly worrying that young men are the group in which there is a growth in suicide. The Government's investment in child and adolescent mental health services is therefore important, both for the specialist services and increasingly for lower-tier services that enable work between mental health professionals, schools and other agencies to identify mental health problems in young people much earlier. For example, early intervention teams are being set up to treat the development of psychosis in young people. The target is to ensure that by 2004, 7,000 young people with early signs of psychosis receive support from those teams.
    Furthermore, the Government recognise the need to tackle stigma to ensure that young people access services when necessary. The "mind out for mental health" campaign, supported by the Government, specifically targets young people in youth groups and universities but we plan to extend its remit. We must ensure that we both offer services and break down barriers, especially on stigma, that prevent young people from accessing services when they need them.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend agree that a crucial plank in that strategy, which will help us to meet the target, is to ensure that the children's national service framework on mental health and medical services looks at the way in which vulnerable children are supported? Sadly, for many decades, in certain regions there has historically been under-acknowledgment of the funding needed for core services for that fragile group of young people. May I make a plea

    149
    to the Minister to look at core services before we look at developing them further in some regions? Many young children desperately need our most special care.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Children with mental health problems certainly deserve our special care. The Government have made some progress following the £105 million extra investment in child and adolescent mental health services. However, I certainly agree that while there is excellent provision in some areas, it is not spread as well as it could be across the country, which is why, as my hon. Friend pointed out, an important component of the children's national service framework is developing standards in child and adolescent mental health services. I assure my hon. Friend that that is an important part of the work that is going on. With the extra investment that is going in, there will be better and more consistent services in future.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome what the Minister said about children's and young people's services. However, is she concerned about the growing number of suicides in rural communities and whether we have faced up to pressures on our farming communities?
    Jacqui Smith: Yes, we are concerned. The hon. Gentleman will see from the suicide strategy that we identify certain high-risk groups, including farmers. We also outline action that the Government have already taken, such as supporting the rural stress action plans and working with the National Farmers Union and other voluntary organisations to identify and support people in our rural communities who find life difficult. That will ensure that we minimise the risks to them and tackle depression and stress, which will contribute to our target of reducing suicide.

    Royal United Hospital
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: If he will make an assessment of the reliability of waiting list data at the Royal United hospital, Bath. [59126]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The National Audit Office raised concerns last December about the accuracy of waiting list information at the Royal United Hospital Bath NHS trust. Those concerns were well founded. Since the publication of its report, the trust, the health authority and the regional director of health and social care have taken steps to ensure that waiting list information is reported strictly in accordance with the 1996 guidance. As a result of those and ongoing measures, I am confident that waiting list information that is reported from the trust is now accurate and reliable.
    Dr. Murrison: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Royal United hospital is clinically excellent, but administratively it has not been so. If the administrative problems at the RUH were replicated in just small part across the country, the Government's recently announced figure of an increase of 23,000 for the total number of people waiting for treatment in the NHS would be a serious underestimate. Does the Minister agree that ministerial pressure on officials to come up with politically acceptable figures is unhelpful at the RUH and
    150
    elsewhere? Will he assure me that he has personally taken charge of the dire situation at the RUH, and will he please respond to my letter of 7 May in which I asked for a meeting with him to discuss progress?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those observations, and I am of course more than happy to meet him. I must say that I have not yet seen his letter of 7 May, but I am not surprised by that.
    It is hugely important that information about waiting lists and times is accurate and reliable—not only for the benefit of the NHS, but for that of the public and Members of Parliament. That is why a considerable amount of effort is put into ensuring that the data are accurate and reliable. For example, we recently asked the Audit Commission to conduct a series of spot checks. We will continue to look carefully at how the information is collected to make sure that it is accurate and reliable. That is an absolute obligation, and we intend to discharge it.
    Mr. David Heath: A significant number of my constituents noted the assurances that only two patients waited for longer than 15 months for an operation with mounting anger, because they knew perfectly well that they had waited that long for treatment at the Royal United hospital. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the significant problems at the RUH are not the fault of the medical and nursing staff, nor of the local population that is served by it, and that it should not be saddled with a history that prevents its staff from providing the improved level of care that we can reasonably expect in the Somerset area?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. No one is calling into question the commitment and dedication of the health care staff at Bath—they clearly do a fantastic job for their patients—but there have been serious management failures at the trust. We all have an overall responsibility to ensure that those failures are tackled, not brushed under the carpet, and that is what we are determined to do. However, it is fundamentally a matter for the local trust to bring any disciplinary action against the individuals who have been involved in this sorry business. That is the right way forward. I do not want to comment on the disciplinary aspects of the case—that would be inappropriate—but no one should doubt our determination to ensure that such episodes are not repeated and that the public and Members of Parliament have absolute confidence in the credibility and reliability of this important information.

    Breast-feeding
    Mr. David Kidney: What advice his Department gives on the health and developmental benefits of breast-feeding. [59127]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The Department advises that breast milk is the best form of nutrition for infants to ensure a good start in life. Breast-feeding confers significant short-term and long-term health benefits for both mother and infant beyond the period of breast-feeding itself. Infants who are breast-fed have a lower risk of infections and of developing obesity in childhood. Breast-feeding for a prolonged period can

    151
    reduce the risk of mothers developing pre-menopausal breast cancer and may help them to lose the weight that they gained during pregnancy.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that many mothers who start breast-feeding give up earlier than they wish because of the many obstacles that they encounter? During the recent awareness week, the summit that I co-hosted with the National Childbirth Trust revealed surprising ignorance among employers about the needs of breast-feeding mums returning to work. Will my hon. Friend consider forming alliances with employers' organisations to spread the advice that she has given us to employers and, through them, to their workers?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right that there is a marked drop-off in breast-feeding in the early weeks by women who want to breast-feed but encounter a range of difficulties. Some are caused by not having role models or the influence of family and friends. It is especially worrying that 91 per cent. of women from the highest social class—social class 1—breast-feed, whereas only 59 per cent. of women from low-income households, who could perhaps benefit most from breast-feeding, do so.
    The Health and Safety Executive currently issues advice to employers to set aside quiet areas for women to breast-feed at work. I am delighted to say that we are working with employers to ensure that as many women as possible can breast-feed for as long as possible and thus gain the benefits for themselves and their babies.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister mentioned the need for role models. Does she therefore believe that there should be better facilities in the House of Commons?
    Ms Blears: That is clearly a matter for the House authorities, but I understand that steps have been taken to provide more facilities, not only for hon. Members but for visitors. That means not only that the Department of Health is encouraging breast-feeding, but that we can make facilities available.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: With all the advantages of breast-feeding that my hon. Friend mentioned, does she believe that women who wish to breast-feed should be able to do so in public without embarrassment to them or to passers-by? Can she take any action—apart from breast-feeding a baby—to try to make breast-feeding more commonplace and acceptable?
    Ms Blears: In May, we held the breast-feeding awareness week, which was incredibly successful. Its excellent slogan was, "Mother's Milk: the perfect take-away". We are constantly trying to raise awareness. In my constituency, we have a project with our local cafés to ensure that breast-feeding women are welcomed into them and can breast-feed in an acceptable and normal way. More work needs to be done. We have also funded an organisation called Breast Mates, which enables women who have breast-fed to talk to their friends and colleagues and encourage other women to breast-feed and get over some of the initial technical difficulties so that they can continue for as long as possible.

    Information Technology
    Dr. John Pugh: If he will make a statement on information technology within the NHS. [59129]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We urgently need to reverse almost two decades of underinvestment and failed attempts to modernise the core IT infrastructure. Later this summer we will provide details about a nationally run IT programme for the NHS backed by large-scale investment.
    Dr. Pugh: Given that the Wanless report stated that getting IT strategy right was essential to fulfil NHS targets, and given that the Government have had three reports about it and three attempts at doing that, what guarantees can they give that the available resources will be used to meet the Government targets and will not be re-routed, which happened previously?
    Mr. Milburn: There are some important lessons to be learned, not only in the NHS but throughout the public sector and in large private sector organisations that have tried to implement new IT programmes. First, we need proper standardisation of IT procurement. Secondly, we need competent leadership, which we now have and can take further forward. We are currently advertising for a national IT director. Thirdly and crucially, we must ensure that IT investment reaches those whom it needs to reach. It is fair to say that that has not always happened in the past. I assure hon. Members that the programme will be centrally run in future so that we can ensure that we avoid some of the piecemeal solutions of the past.
    Dr. Liam Fox: How many of the new primary care trusts will be able to use electronic patient records?
    Mr. Milburn: A proportion of them will be able to do that.
    Dr. Fox: Five?
    Mr. Milburn: No, it is more than five. I believe that 98 per cent. of GP practices are now connected to the NHS net, thanks to the investment in improved health service IT. We have made the investment available. Would the hon. Gentleman match it?
    Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State has been promising for five years to meet the investment targets for putting into the health service the IT necessary to deliver many of the pledges that he set out in the national plan. I can give him the answer to my question, as he is unable to provide it. Only five trusts appear set to meet their targets, although the initial target was 35 per cent. of trusts by April 2002. The right hon. Gentleman is well behind that target. This problem has been reported on round the country, not least by Mr. Howell Huws, the IT director at Hammersmith hospitals NHS trust, who said that, last year, many health authorities raided supposedly ring-fenced IT budgets to meet service pressures and political imperatives, and that suggestions were emerging that the pattern may be repeated this year.

    153
    Under political pressure from the Secretary of State, money is being taken out of IT programmes, mental health, and many other areas that deserve investment, to meet abstract ministerial targets and to distort the figures to make things look better for Ministers. Under this Government, the control of information, the setting of targets and the health of the Government are more important than the health of the public.
    Mr. Milburn: I do not think that that is the case. It is certainly true that there have been some problems with IT investment. That is why it is important that, when we direct investment into parts of the national health service,
    154
    we make sure that it gets through. As I said in an earlier answer, that is precisely why we shall have a centrally run IT programme, to ensure that we have a modern health service with modern IT. The simple fact is this: we are prepared to commit the investment. We have identified not only the level of investment but the sources of the investment. The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that he complains about IT, but he does not complain about the shortage of cash. If he is concerned about the lack of IT, it is about time he put his money where his mouth is. He had the opportunity to do so on 1 May, but he explicitly voted against extra resources for the national health service.

Home Safety
3.32 pm
Ms Claire Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the use of accident prevention and safety measures in the home; to reduce the cost of such measures by reducing the rate of VAT levied on them; and for connected purposes.
Each year, about 4,000 deaths occur as a result of accidents in the home—more than 10 every day. We all know how dangerous our roads are, with more than 3,600 deaths a year resulting from traffic accidents, yet that number is smaller than the number of accident-related deaths in the home. Our railways are more than five times safer than our roads, yet there are always calls for public inquiries and fresh investment on the mercifully rare occasions when accidents occur. The number of people killed on our railways is, however, a tiny percentage of the number who lose their lives in accidents in the home.
Almost 3 million accidents requiring medical treatment occur in the home each year. Some involve serious injuries resulting in long-term disabilities, and each of those represents a personal tragedy for the person involved, and for their family and friends. These accidents also place a huge burden on our health service, and particularly on our emergency services.
Many of the deaths resulting from accidents in the home could have been prevented if householders had followed simple rules or installed safety equipment. Some of the worst tragedies are accidents suffered by children, and it is worth noting that this is child safety week. Every day, 10 under-five-year-olds are severely burned, and the disfigurement and pain that result can cause terrible mental and physical trauma in a child throughout the rest of his or her life.
Every parent knows how difficult it is to keep a constant eye on a two-year-old and how quickly their hands can reach the flex of a kettle or the handle of a pan of boiling water or milk. It is easy to give simple reminders to parents to keep all pans to the back of the hob and kettle flexes secured, but the figures suggest that too many children are still being badly hurt.
The Bill would place a statutory requirement on local authorities to promote safety awareness in the home. This could be done by means of public information being sent to every home annually, with the council tax notices. Local authorities could co-ordinate the work of other agencies to ensure that homes in which there is a higher risk, such as those in multiple occupation, or those where elderly residents or children live, were targeted with advice and offered the installation of safety devices at a discounted cost.
By introducing a Bill that will reduce the cost of safety measures, I hope that we can reduce the number of accidents and deaths. Statistics complied by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents suggest that the number of accidents in the home can be clearly linked to income and deprivation levels. For example, the injury death rate for children in unskilled families is five times greater than that for children from professional families. Residential fire deaths are 15 times greater for children in social class V than for children in social class I. Houses in multiple occupation tend to have low incomes, and are also more likely to have fires and suffer resulting loss of life.
156
Lower-income households often have to choose between investing in safety equipment or purchasing the other necessities of life. Given the correlation between income and accidents in the home, it seems that the choice is not always made in favour of the equipment. Too many people assume that accidents will never happen to them. Each year, there are 45,000 accident and emergency admissions for under-five-year-olds who have fallen down stairs. A safety gate can be used to restrict the movement of young children around the home, particularly into the kitchen area, and thereby help to reduce the number of accidents. Such a gate costs about £20, which is roughly 20 per cent. of the weekly income of a single parent on benefit with one child. The removal or reduction of VAT would offer a further incentive to purchasing this essential equipment. Further statistics from RoSPA suggest that more than 10,000 accidents each year involve a fireplace, a grate or a fender. A fireguard costs a minimum of £20.
It is not just children who can fall victim to accidents in the home: the elderly and disabled are also vulnerable. Each year, about 1,100 over-75-year-olds die as a result of accidental falls in the home. In addition, there is the risk of hip fracture and the resulting loss of mobility and restriction on quality of life. That risk is especially high in older women, who are more likely to suffer from osteoporosis and to live on their own. A useful piece of equipment is a hip protector, worn by those most at risk from a fall, which disperses a fall's impact on the hip bone. Hip protectors have proved highly effective in reducing the number of injuries, but they are also fairly expensive, as each person requires three or four sets. An average cost of £30 per set can be a significant sum for many pensioners or disabled people.
Each year, nearly 500 people in the UK are killed in house fires. The numbers have fallen in recent years, but even one preventable death is too many. More than 18,000 people are injured as a result of fires. Most fires occur in the home, most are avoidable and most affect those who are society's vulnerable. The installation of domestic smoke alarms has significantly reduced the number of deaths. Where a functioning detector is present, early warning of a fire is given and the likelihood of escape is dramatically increased. However, in some cases it was discovered that, although a smoke alarm was present, the battery had been removed or was no longer working. Reducing VAT on smoke alarms would help to promote alarms that are tamper-proof or mains-wired.
The final element of the Bill is the requirement that all new domestic properties be fitted with a fire sprinkler system. As a condition of building permission, developers would have to fit sprinklers as well as smoke alarms. I suspect that the construction industry would raise the issue of cost, but who can put a price on a person's life? We know that no one in the UK has ever lost their life through a fire when a full sprinkler system was present, which surely shows that the benefits outweigh the costs. Furthermore, if the Bill's other provisions were approved, the removal or reduction of VAT on such systems would be of great assistance.
Sprinklers are a proven method of reducing the number of deaths caused by fires. Automatic sprinkler systems are used more than any other fixed fire protection system, with more than 40 million sprinklers fitted worldwide every year.

157
In June 1986, the city of Scottsdale, Arizona in the USA passed a local regulation requiring all new residential and commercial property to have sprinkler protection. A report was published 10 years later on the impact of the regulation. The findings concluded that 35 per cent. of single-family homes and 50 per cent. of multi-family homes in Scottsdale had sprinkler protection. Over that period 598 fires broke out in homes in the city. Of those, 44 resulted in sprinkler activation. The fire was contained by only one or two sprinkler heads in 41 of the 44 cases. There were no fatalities in the sprinkler-protected homes. In the other dwelling fires, 10 deaths occurred in eight fires. The average cost of a sprinkler fire was $1,544 and that of other fires was $11,624. The facts speak for themselves.
The Government have a target of reducing the number of fire deaths by 20 per cent. by March 2003. The Bill could help to achieve that. I realise that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may not be enthusiastic about any measure that would reduce VAT and hence the revenue over which he has control. However, I hope that he and the Government will recognise that the Bill would encourage and stimulate demand for safety measures, as a means of reducing the millions of accidents that occur each year, and that he will take this opportunity to discuss the matter with the EU to review the lists of goods and services that could benefit from a reduction in VAT.
I wish to thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Fire Protection Association for their assistance in the preparation of the Bill, and the fire and rescue service, especially in Hertfordshire, for its support for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Claire Ward, Phil Hope. Mr. Huw Edwards, Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Ivan Henderson and Mr. Andy Reed.

HOME SAFETY
Ms Claire Ward accordingly presented a Bill to promote the use of accident prevention and safety measures in the home; to reduce the cost of such measures by reducing the rate of VAT levied on them; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 149].
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CRIMINAL LAW
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

RECEPTION OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS
That this House takes note of European Document No. 8351/02, draft Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States; supports the Government's efforts to secure agreement on a Council directive for reception conditions for asylum applicants which will promote a balance in the provision of reception arrangements throughout the Union; and notes the Government's commitment to secure agreement to the asylum measures within the time period envisaged by the Treaty of Amsterdam.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Question agreed to.

European Affairs
[Relevant documents: The Thirty-first Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2001ߝ02 (HC I 52-xxxi), paragraph 2, on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, and the Twenty-third Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2001ߝ02 (HC 152-xxiii) paragraph 3, on the Stability and Convergence Programmes.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
3.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Spanish presidency will host the next meeting of the European Council of Heads of Government in Seville on 21 and 22 June. Today the House has its customary six-monthly opportunity to debate the Government's priorities for the summit. Five years into this Government's period of office, I believe that we have been able to re-establish the United Kingdom's influence in Europe.
Re-engagement has enabled us to set new priorities for the EU. For example, on economic reform, the so-called Lisbon agenda is now at the centre of the EU' s work programme. We have strengthened European co-operation against crime and terrorism. We are at the forefront of efforts to establish a common asylum policy and in the fight against illegal immigration. With the French, we have promoted the development of a European security and defence capability for use in crisis management, and we have championed the enlargement of the European Union, which will root stability and democracy throughout our continent and should generate up to an estimated £1.75 billion per year in additional business for British companies.
All those achievements have improved the quality of life and security of British people. They demonstrate that this Government are realising the aspiration of a former Conservative Prime Minister to put Britain at the heart of Europe. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear that Conservative Front-Bench Members treat their former leaders in the way they have always done—with disdain and contempt.
Mr. David Wilshire: We are all Thatcherites now.
Mr. Straw: I thought that someone might say that. In fact, it was not Baroness Thatcher who said that but the much more recent Conservative Prime Minister, who I thought would be regarded with some kind of affection by his party, at least for a short while—namely Mr. Major.
At Seville, we will be seeking to secure further benefits for British and European citizens. In particular, we believe that the summit should send a signal of our determination to make progress on asylum and immigration and on the reform of the Council of the European Union, to make the whole system work better. I want to concentrate my remarks on these two important issues, as well as talking about two important foreign policy matters that will unquestionably arise at Seville.
First, the current levels of asylum and illegal immigration are Europe-wide phenomena that affect all EU nations. Britain is by no means alone in facing this problem—we rank eighth out of the 15 European Union
160
member states in asylum applications per person. The official statistics significantly understate the problem of illegal immigration in a number of southern European countries where, for reasons of geography and history, they do not tend to count the number of illegals within their borders with the same assiduity as we do. Indeed. there are practical problems in doing so. In addition, because of the nature of the informal labour markets, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are at large in France, Italy and Spain without having made an application for asylum in the first place.
Austria, which does count, receives two and a half times as many asylum applications as the United Kingdom in per capita terms. Belgium and the Netherlands receive significantly more than we do. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, and the first increase in asylum applications that came in that first tranche from the Balkans, Germany has had almost three times as many applications as the UK in the past 10 years.
At Seville, we want member states to push for the faster introduction of a common asylum policy and for tough action against illegal immigration. In preparation for this debate, I entertained myself to some lost tablets—the Conservative party's manifesto for 2001. Those who remember the past year's events will recall that no sooner had the Conservative party lost the election than it excised its manifesto completely from its website. We now have to resort to the old-fashioned methods of paper and ink, printing and books, to find the manifesto. It is replete with claims of a pick-and-mix approach to Europe in which, apart from the single market, there were to be new treaty flexibility provisions. The Conservatives were simply going to impose those on Europe—they ignored the minor difficulty of having to obtain the approbation and agreement of the other 14 member states. Under those new treaty flexibility provisions,
"Countries need only participate in new legislative actions at a European level if they see this as in their national interest".
Opposition Front-Bench Members are obviously still signed up to that—[Interruption.] Well, the shadow Leader of the House remains signed up to that statement, but evidently the other Members on the Conservative Front Bench are not. Some things never change—including the visceral divisions on the Conservative Front Bench and, indeed, the poor taste displayed by the ties worn by the shadow Leader of the House.
Thinking Opposition Members will at least agree that there is cross-party agreement about the need to take firmer action throughout Europe to deal with the problems of asylum and immigration flows that affect all countries in Europe. If we are to do that, we have to achieve a level playing field—to use a cliché—so that we end asylum shopping. We all have to accept the same principal definition in the 1951 convention, but member states operate differing interpretations of the convention and different administrative practices. The only way to deal with that is to have a common policy commonly applied across Europe. That would not and could not have been possible had the Conservatives won the last election and allowed individual member states to suit themselves as to whether they opted in or out of all legislation affecting the EU.
Mr. Michael Ancram: While the right hon. Gentleman was rooting around for previous manifestos, did he have a chance to check the 1983 Labour manifesto

161
on which he was elected? Will he remind us of his party's position at that time and tell us whether he still adheres to the manifesto on which he was elected?
Mr. Straw: Not only do I remember almost every page of the 1983 manifesto, but also every page of the 1982 Labour programme which was very much longer and even more at error than the 1983 manifesto. I am surprised that I was not asked about that programme, as it illustrates the infection that had overtaken the Labour party at that time. Happily, the only way to cure such an infection is to pass it on to another party, and the Conservatives have now caught it. On page 79 of that programme, three paragraphs set out Labour's detailed commitment to establish a system of local authority licensing of horse dealers. That was in 1983, not 1883.
I mention that because it illustrates the mindset that infected the Labour party at that time—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the answer?"] The answer is that I do not agree with what we said then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is the answer; I thought it would have been obvious. The important question is about whether the Conservative party subscribes to a manifesto that is only 13 months old, not about a manifesto written for an election 19 years ago.
Mr. Frank Field: Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that he hoped that, after the summit, we would have a common policy in Europe on asylum seeking and illegal immigrants. I thought that we already had a common policy, and that the problem was that it was not implemented. Is not the basis of that common policy the idea that people have to register their status as asylum seekers in the country where they first arrive? Is not the problem for us the fact that our partners in Europe do not implement that existing common policy?
Mr. Straw: That is part of the problem. However, it is one thing to set out the principle and another thing to ensure that it operates in practice. One of the difficulties that I faced as Home Secretary from October 1997 was that at that time, thanks to decisions made by the Conservative Government during the previous seven years about which I could do nothing, the former gentlemen's agreement on asylum seekers who ended up in the United Kingdom was finished. Under that agreement, if we could establish within a seven-day period that someone had come from France—regardless of the EU country of their original entry—we could send them back. That agreement finished and in its place came the Dublin convention, which has turned out to be a bureaucratic nightmare. We are now seeking to renegotiate it, but funnily enough, that requires the agreement of the other 14 member states.
Mr. Field rose—
Mr. Straw: I should tell my right hon. Friend—I shall then give way again—that, meanwhile, under articles 62 to 67 of the Amsterdam treaty, with which he will be familiar, it was agreed, not least on the United Kingdom's initiative by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that there should be more detailed provisions requiring the introduction of what amounts to a common application of the asylum policy and common rules of procedure.
Mr. Field: I appreciate the fullness of that reply, but during the general election campaign and since, the view
162
of many of my voters has been that the country that offends most against the common policy is France. As the Government are trying to get the French to play on a level playing field, I wonder whether they have considered sending our immigration officials to French camps so that the processing can take place on French soil. The two Governments could then agree on what to do with those people who are not asylum seekers, but are, quite understandably, economic migrants whom we may or may not wish to have.
Mr. Straw: During my period as Home Secretary and under my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary, we have certainly been ready to send all kinds of advisers to France and other countries. Indeed, there is a great deal of contact between the two immigration and asylum services. I should add that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already met his opposite number M. Sarkozy, the new Interior Minister, and is due to meet him again next week. I have had a series of discussions with my new opposite number Dominique de Villepin. The new French Administration is so far—it is early days—showing a constructive approach to trying to resolve this issue in a mutually acceptable way.
There is however a difficulty in the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not dismiss it out of hand, but the difficulty is that, if we were to process applicants in France, we would have to accept responsibility for them, even though the appropriate country for them to apply for asylum in would be either France, because they were there, or the original EU country in which they arrived if that was not France. They might have arrived in a country further to the east.
I should also tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that, as every EU country knows, even when a decision has been made to reject applicants, the question then arises of what to do about those applicants and how to get them back to the country whence they came. Unless such people were to be incarcerated in increasing numbers—
Mr. Field: They are in a camp at the moment.
Mr. Straw: I understand that, and it is a very suitable camp, too. As I say, I do not rule out my right hon. Friend's proposal. Obviously, all constructive suggestions, including my right hon. Friend's, are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: Yes, and then I shall make some progress.
Mr. Foulkes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the representations that he has made regarding security at the Frethun camp. Will he give an indication of when he expects the French authorities to have adequate security protection at Frethun, so that the disruption to freight services to the continent from the United Kingdom can be ended?
Mr. Straw:: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact time scale, but I can say that my right hon. Friend the Home

163
Secretary and all other Ministers, and their equivalents across the channel, are well seized of the urgency of taking action. My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Commission has threatened to take proceedings against the French Government for their failure properly to protect the freight terminal at Frethun, as well as to take other action to protect the channel tunnel's assets, and the Commission is quite right to do so. I am pleased that the present French Government have so far shown a constructive approach. I have to say that I found dealing with their predecessors extremely frustrating on this issue, because they did not deliver that which they said that they would.
I ought to make a little progress. The need for the new approach to a common asylum policy and to take tough action against illegal immigration is not about the creation of a fortress Europe. Immigration has made and continues to make a vital contribution to European cultural and economic life. We all now recognise, however, that if we fail to manage the flow of illegal immigration and unfounded asylum seekers, we risk destroying the consensus that we should provide refuge for those genuinely fleeing persecution. As we have seen in recent months, politicians on the far right across Europe have been only too willing to exploit this issue for electoral gain. In response, it is incumbent on us all to deal with the issue responsibly and sensibly.
As I have indicated, we have long recognised the importance of moving towards a common asylum system. Britain played a leading role in framing the action plan on asylum at the Tampere summit in 1999, in Finland, which I was privileged to attend; but the EU has since been unable to achieve many of the milestones that were agreed there almost three years ago. For all EU member states, progress has been slow on returning failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin, and in implementing measures to strengthen the EU's external frontier.
At Seville, we intend to inject new urgency into the Tampere commitments. We must reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants seeking to come to Europe in the first place, return more of those whose claims fail, and tackle the criminality behind this trade in human misery. We need a common asylum policy, a stronger external border for the EU, and a new approach to source and transit countries.
Again, as I have indicated, a common asylum policy would mean uniform standards for receiving asylum seekers arriving anywhere in Europe, and fixed procedures for dealing with those applications. That would prevent asylum seekers from "shopping" for the best point of entry and from making multiple claims in different countries. That also requires a co-ordinated information base and co-ordinated fingerprinting systems to track the claims.
At Seville, as well as arguing for a common administrative system and common standards, we will be calling for urgent action to strengthen the EU's external border. That should include joint work to identify weak points in the current and future external border, and on key transit routes for illegal immigrants into Europe; and joint operations to strengthen any such weak links. That should enable us to target trafficking gangs and track down forgers and transporters.
Mike Gapes: Three weeks ago, I was in Bulgaria with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I had
164
discussions with the Interior Minister there. The Bulgarians in particular, because of their location and their potential in a few years to be the eastern border of NATO and the EU, will face great pressures. Can my right hon. Friend talk to his colleagues in Government about strengthening the support that we give to Bulgaria, Romania and other countries in the Balkans on these matters?
Mr. Straw: Indeed, I can. I was going to come on to say that we will also be calling for the strategic use of Community funding to assist countries, especially those on the eastern border—or what is likely to become the eastern border—of the EU. The cost of defending that border in an expanded EU should not fall disproportionately on those least able to afford it.
Kate Hoey: My right hon. Friend has talked about extra Community funding for countries in eastern Europe. Would he consider whether there might be a way in which the Government can provide more support and help for boroughs such as mine in inner-city areas? Not a single person in my borough of Lambeth now has a chance of being rehoused, because every single empty flat is being allocated to an asylum seeker or an economic migrant. Surely the real problem is that we treat our economic migrants much less harshly than France does. No wonder they want to come to this country.
Mr. Straw: First, I will ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns for her constituency are followed up. I happen to be one of her constituents, along with many thousands of others, and if I may say so, she does a brilliant job as our Member of Parliament, and is held in high regard by all her constituents. I am also my own Member of Parliament, but I shall not comment on the kind of service that I receive from myself.
The question of why people come to this country is complex. It has to do with some factors that we cannot do anything about, or do not want to do anything about. For example, they include the fact that English is our language, that our economy is doing better than those in other countries, that the London economy, in particular, is doing very well, and that a quarter of the people in London are drawn from ethnic minority communities of one kind or another. There are a whole range of issues—and yes, we also treat people decently.
In France the number of asylum seekers is, and has been, rising but I accept the case that my hon. Friend makes for taking the pressure off places such as inner London boroughs and south coast resorts. That is one of the reasons why I introduced the dispersal policy, which I happen to think was a relative success.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Throughout our discussion of what are, after all, the central issues for this country—the control of asylum seekers, border controls and immigration—the Foreign Secretary has spoken about the essential importance of commonality across the European Union. Can he tell the House what the Government's exact position will be on giving away a little control, in the form of qualified majority voting, on such issues? Does he intend to do that or not?
Mr. Straw: On asylum, the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that under article 67 of the Amsterdam treaty, the House approved—
Mr. Prisk: What about Seville?
Mr. Straw: Seville is not an intergovernmental conference, so there is no issue of treaty renegotiation. The powers necessary to apply the policy are in the treaties. Under article 67, there is provision by which the Council can move by unanimous vote to qualified majority voting in certain areas of asylum and immigration policy. We wish that to be used for certain areas of asylum policy, but that is quite separate from the issue of whether our veto and our opt-out in respect of our border controls for immigration purposes are maintained. The position on that is absolutely clear. We shall maintain our veto and opt-out for border controls and for normal immigration purposes.
I know that Members on both sides of the House sometimes confuse the two issues, but they should not be confused. They are two very separate issues. One is about the routes of legal immigration into this country, for which we need our own controls. The second is about the routes for illegal immigration into this country and the rest of Europe, and there it is very much in our interests to have a common application of common principles—to which we are, in any case, signed up under the 1951 convention.
Mr. George Howarth: My right hon. Friend said that Britain's economic success was one of the reasons why people wanted to come to this country. On the point about Britain's economic success, may I ask, as one old Eurosceptic to another, whether he agrees that the argument about whether it is right in principle to join a single currency was largely dealt with during the debates on the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act? It is now a technical rather than a political matter. That being so, does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to the Chancellor's five tests, it might be a good idea to ask the Governor of the Bank of England to take advice from wherever he thinks it appropriate and advise the Government and Parliament as to when the time might be right to enter the single currency?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is a good and old friend—and I may say, between friends, that there was no necessity to drag out my previous convictions in that way. I will draw his views and suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government's position was well set out in my right hon. Friend's statement of 27 October 1997, and that remains our policy as stated.
We must tackle the long-term causes of illegal immigration and asylum seeking, such as the poverty and instability that lead to migratory pressures into Europe. That means the development of an effective policy towards source and transit countries for illegal immigration. Our goal is to strengthen the European Union's partnership with such countries, confronting the problems at the point of origin and, where necessary, providing targeted assistance.
We also need to take more immediate action. We have to make it clear to source and transit countries that co-operation with the EU in this field is of the utmost
166
importance, and that working with us will strengthen their relationship with the EU and create the advantages that they want. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we are proposing a positive conditionality. For example, if source countries are prepared to take back their own nationals, many of whom will have valuable skills and experience, then we are prepared to help.
Roger Casale: I welcome the recognition of the need for a common asylum policy, and what my right hon. Friend says about source and transit countries. Just as we work with countries within the EU, it is also important that we work collectively with countries outside the EU to regulate migration flows. In the respect of framing a common asylum policy, will my right hon. Friend look closely at the experience of previous Italian Governments who have worked with countries in north Africa to develop a three-pronged approach? First, they have worked closely with the security forces in north African countries; secondly, they have accepted a quota of legal migration; thirdly, and importantly, they have provided investment and assistance to help the economic development of those countries to abate the pressures for economic migration in the first place.
Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on European co-operation. I will definitely take forward his positive suggestion, which is based on much experience of southern Europe.
The EU's tardiness in acting on the Tampere agenda shows that even with just 15 member states it does not act as effectively as it should. Our public wants a Europe that delivers. If we are to meet that demand, the Union's institutional structure must be overhauled.
Britain has taken the lead in the debate on institutional reform. Almost two years ago in Warsaw, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mapped out his vision of how the EU should develop in the 21st century. In The Hague earlier this year, I set out specific proposals for EU reform to prepare not just for the challenges of enlargement, but for the here and now—for the changes that we need to make now if the EU is to work better. We have to make the Union more effective, more democratically accountable and better understood. We should spell out more clearly for the public what the EU is for, what it is not for, and how it enables nation states to achieve more together than they can achieve alone.
Reforms requiring treaty change will be taken by the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. The IGC will, of course, be informed by the report of the convention on the future of Europe. I am glad to see in the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who sits as the Government's representative on the convention, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is one of the two parliamentary representatives from this House, and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who represents the official Opposition. I pay tribute to all three for their work, which I know has involved considerable effort. I also pay tribute to the work of Lord Tomlinson, Lord Maclennan, who sits on the convention for the Liberal Democrats, and Baroness Scotland, who is one of the alternates representing the Government.
A key issue before the convention is the presidency of the Council. We believe that we need a more consistent and co-ordinated approach than the current six-monthly

167
rotation allows. We have advocated the appointment of national chairmen for each of the specialist Councils for a longer period of, say, two and a half years. Those chairmen might act as a sort of team presidency to ensure that the strategic direction given by the European Council is properly followed through.
Although the Seville Council, which will take place soon, cannot itself take any decisions on reforms requiring treaty change, we will press for the adoption of several other measures to improve the efficiency of the Council and make the Union more accessible to the public. The Secretary General of the Council, Javier Solana, has made a series of proposals for Council reform and they will be the basis for discussion. His recommendations focus on injecting greater strategic coherence into the Council, splitting the General Affairs Council into a foreign affairs council and then separately into what is called a horizontal council, which co-ordinates across the work of the functional councils, reforming the presidency system, and increasing transparency. That is largely our agenda.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work on the reform agenda in Europe. He will know that when the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schroder wrote to the Spanish Prime Minister on 25 February, they set out 20 points for reform, which they hope will be implemented by the European Council meeting in Seville. How many of those points does my right hon. Friend think will be met at that meeting?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the tribute, as well as for the difficult question that followed. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My excellent Minister for Europe will give the answer in his winding-up speech, and as I know that all right hon. and hon. Members who are here at the beginning of the debate will show proper respect to the Chair and be here at the end, too, there will be no punishment involved in waiting for my right hon. Friend to give that answer. Although I do not have the exact number, I can tell my hon. Friend (Mr. Vaz) that a significant proportion of those 20 points, which are capable of non-treaty implementation, will be agreed at Seville. [Laughter.] The mockers will become the mocked. If Conservative Members want the European Union to work better, they should be supporting these changes, including the one that I am about to talk about.
One thing that has tended to jam up the agenda of the European Council of Heads of Government is that it has become a court of appeal for the functional councils. A member state in such a council, facing a defeat under QMV, can effectively veto a proposal by saying that they will take the matter to the European Council where, notwithstanding the requirement in the treaties that the matter be dealt with by QMV, it has to be dealt with by consensus. That means that the agenda of the European Council has become increasingly constipated by items that could and should have been sorted out by a functional council, or certainly—because the treaties say so and because it is sensible—should have been decided by QMV. We support the recommendation—it is one of the 20—that the European Council should adopt QMV for issues that have been subject to QMV in the functional councils.
We also share Mr. Solana's concerns about transparency, and at Seville we will be supporting the introduction of television cameras into councils when they
168
are legislating. Those are important reforms. They tell voters that the politicians whom they elect and can dismiss set the agenda and take the decisions, and that is an important part of the public presentation of Europe. It is not the oft-reviled and misunderstood Brussels bureaucrats who make decisions; it is elected politicians, and so it should be.
Angus Robertson: I fully support the Foreign Secretary's point about increasing transparency in the Council of Ministers, which will provide access and information and allow the public to understand how European policy is made. Why do the Government not support that within the UK, and reform the concordats covering European business between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, so that we can fully understand the discussions that take place between Ministers in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question, which we discussed at some length during the many debates on the Freedom of Information Bill of blessed memory, which is now an Act. It is important to balance transparency against the opportunity to be involved in confidential discussions while alternatives are being developed.
Everybody accepts that argument as it applies to their own party, because parties could not operate if their key decision-making bodies had to work in the full glare of publicity. I dare say that applies to the hon. Gentleman's party as well as to any other. UK Cabinet Government could not operate in that way, nor could the Executives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—nor, indeed, could the General Affairs Council, as was pointed out yesterday in its discussions. The natural give and take that is essential if decisions are to be reached, whether by majority or by unanimity, must take place in a rather informal setting. That could not happen if every judgment and every contribution that we made was written down and could be played back against us by Oppositions. This is a matter of balancing the way in which decisions are developed with the way in which they are made formally.
We accept that when we change the law of Europe, and therefore, by definition, the law of individual nation states, that process ought to be transparent and in public. However, if we followed the hon. Gentleman's route, there would not be more transparency and accountability but less, because the real decisions would then be made in informal meetings outside the formal rooms. That would produce the opposite result from the one that he seeks.
Mr. Robert Walter: I am a little worried about the Foreign Secretary's qualification concerning the presence of the television cameras in the Council. He seems to be suggesting that they will be there just for the formal vote, not for the debate, so we will not know what positions various member Governments have taken in the Council in arriving at that decision.
Mr. Straw: The cameras would be there not just for the formal votes, but for the points of legislation. As for negotiations over text, I defy anybody who has had any experience of negotiations over texts to say how having television cameras recording every last detail of the negotiation of texts would assist the process of negotiation. It simply would not be possible. Everybody

169
who knows about negotiations knows that to be the case. It would not be possible under a Conservative Administration, and it is certainly not possible under the present Administration. We are not in favour of it.
The case for institutional reform of the kind that I have just described would be clear-cut even if the European Union were forever to be just 15 strong, but it becomes urgent with the impending expansion of the EU into southern, eastern and central Europe. I do not want to pre-empt the decisions on enlargement due later this year, but I hope that the Seville Council will reiterate our commitment to the conclusion of negotiations with the 10 applicants by this December, allowing them to join in 2004.
In Berlin last month I set out the case for a large enlargement. Experience tells us that we need more, not fewer, partners to tackle the issues that concern our citizens—more countries working in an EU framework in the fight against illegal immigration; more resources to defeat global terrorism; and more co-operation to shut down drug and people-smuggling routes.
We have all gained from previous EU expansions and I believe that we will gain in the future. In the 1980s enlargement underpinned the reintroduction of democracy in Spain, Portugal and Greece. It has encouraged growth and mutual prosperity both in those countries and across Europe. For those of my generation, it is worth remembering that 35 years ago Spain, Portugal and Greece were fascist dictatorships. Many of us refused to visit them because of the politics of those countries, but none of us could have anticipated that 35 years later they would be fully active members of the European Union.
Since the accession of Spain to the EU, its trade with the UK has increased by over 400 per cent. Expansion has led to considerable migration, but more from the old member states to the new than vice versa. That makes the point that we must all acknowledge: the principal motor of migration is economic imbalances. As the imbalances between the Iberian peninsula and the rest of the European Union have changed, so migration patterns have changed. The figures for France and Spain are interesting. In 1986 when Spain joined the EU, there were 109,000 Spanish workers in France; by 1994 that had fallen to just 35,000. People went back to Spain for work.
For all EU member states, enlargement should not just be about an historic obligation to reunite Europe. It is also a matter of enlightened self-interest. If we want to deliver economic prosperity, a cleaner environment and safer streets for our citizens, we should embrace enlargement, not postpone it.
Before I close my remarks I should add that, as usual, there will be a discussion of major foreign policy and security issues at Seville.
Roger Casale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. May I draw his attention to the forthcoming report of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, which will be published later this week, on democracy and accountability in the European Union? I shall not anticipate the findings of the report, but my right hon. Friend will know that part of its remit was to consider the role of national Parliaments. Does he agree in principle that if we upgrade the role of the Council of
170
Ministers and the role of Governments, we should also upgrade the role of national Parliaments in EU decision making? Does he also agree that national Parliaments can be a very good bridge to citizens in terms of involving and engaging them in EU decision-making processes? Will he give his support to any appropriate practical measures that can be considered to improve and upgrade the role of national Parliaments in EU decision making?
Mr. Straw: I answer with an emphatic yes, as I am very strongly committed to strengthening the role of national Parliaments in the decision-making and supervisory processes of the European Union. I believe that that is one of the most important ways of ensuring that the European Union not only stays connected to its electors at an institutional and supranational level, but is increasingly better connected to them. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), as a representative of the national Parliament, is on a working party on the role of national parliaments as part of her job as a member of the praesidium of the convention. If I am wrong, I am sure that someone will correct me.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I am chairing it.
Mr. Straw: I was wrong, but happily so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on holding that position.
I look forward to the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) referred. I hope that the whole House will pay careful attention to the constructive proposals from the convention and from his Select Committee about how we can better insert the national Parliaments into the operation of the European Union.
I now want to deal with two important foreign policy matters. First, the middle east will feature on the convention's agenda for sure. Yet again, discussion about it will be overshadowed by a further terrorist outrage: the suicide bombing that took place this morning. As I left the Foreign Office, 17 people had been reported killed and 40 injured, and it is quite possible that the toll is rising. I should like to place on record our belief about the totally despicable nature of this attack, in which so many innocent people have again lost their lives: the detonation of a bomb on a bus carrying schoolchildren is an act of evil beyond words. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending out our condolences and sense of grief to the victims' families, to those who were injured and to those who are trying to tend to them.
All of us understand the depth of feeling that exists on both sides in the middle east conflict. In our view, none of us should ever seek to justify—indeed, it cannot be a matter of justification—the use of terror against innocent civilians to advance a political cause. Yes, I note that the Palestinian Authority has condemned the attack, but it has to demonstrate to the international community that it is making effective efforts to crack down on terrorism and deal with the utterly evil people who organise the suicide bombers. Yes, they send other people to their death, including the bombers, but they never send themselves to death. They are willing to use the deaths of their own people, as it were, as well as the deaths of innocents on the other side, to seek to advance their cause. The last

171
thing that I shall say about this matter is that their cause cannot be the true cause of the Palestinians. Every time such terrorism takes place, it reduces the support and understanding in the rest of the world for the true cause of the Palestinians—a peaceful settlement of this terrible dispute with Israel.
Mr. Alan Duncan: In identifying Opposition Members totally with what the Foreign Secretary has said about suicide bombings, may I ask whether he will advise the House during the next few minutes of what his policy and that of the EU is likely to be on the construction of a fence and trench dividing Palestinian land from Israeli land?
Mr. Straw: We had a brief discussion yesterday on the middle east, including that issue. We decided to delay comprehensive discussion, which will probably take place on Friday at dinner, as we anticipate a major statement by President Bush on the issue. Obviously, we will make a full report, or a full report will he made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that part of the discussion in his statement on the conclusions of Seville next Monday.
I shall now deal briefly with the other major issue—Kashmir. I set out our position on Kashmir in a statement to the House on Monday last week. Since the resurgence of violence in recent months, the issue has been high on the European Union's agenda. There has been intense diplomatic activity by the EU countries, as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, and Commissioner Chris Patten visited the region last month. I welcome assurances from President Musharraf that he is taking steps to crack down effectively on cross-border terrorism, and I am pleased that in recent days India has taken significant steps to reduce tensions.
I hope that at Seville, EU leaders will underline the need for Pakistan to take visible, decisive and verifiable steps to seal the line of control, to stop supplies to militant groups and help to restrain their violent activities, and to close the militant training camps on Pakistan's side of the line of control. I hope that EU Governments will also support our call for the Indian Government to improve the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, and to ensure that free, fair and inclusive elections take place there this autumn.
Let me now come back to the central agenda for Seville. The EU has now been in existence for 45 years, and the UK has been a member for two thirds of that period, since 1973. It is a political institution without parallel in history, and has rightly aroused huge debate and controversy here and in continental Europe—long may that continue. I am in no doubt, however, that its historic achievement, alongside NATO, has been remarkable. It has secured long-term peace with prosperity across a continent whose previous normal experience was conflict and turmoil. None the less, if the Union is to develop further it has to look forward and respond not to yesterday's problems but to the challenges of today and tomorrow.
The Seville Council is a chance to show European voters that we are determined to deliver outcomes for our citizens within the framework of a Union that can earn and maintain popular support. As usual, we will be working with our European partners to achieve our goals through negotiation, not confrontation. Our experience in
172
Europe shows that by building partnerships and working wholeheartedly with our friends in the European Union we can deliver—we have done, and will do so in future—practical reforms and benefits for the British people.
4.32 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his choice of debate today, as 18 June commemorates one of the most comprehensive defeats for European integration and the creation of the European superstate—the battle of Waterloo. He may well recall that on that occasion unexpected intervention by one of our European partners helped us to win the day.
Mr. Straw: There is a much more recent anniversary—18 June is the thirty-second anniversary of a victory that the Conservative party wishes to forget. On 18 June 1970, Sir Edward Heath won the election that led to Britain going into Europe.
Mr. Ancram: It is a date that I remember very well, as that was the first time that I stood, unsuccessfully, for election to the House. It is therefore engraved on my heart.
One of the better developments in the six months since we last debated European affairs is the warming of relations between Russia, Europe and the United States. We welcome the new framework of relations between Russia and NATO, which will allow deeper and more fruitful co-operation between the present NATO countries and Russia. Closer ties between Russia and the rest of Europe may lead to greater security but could also act as a catalyst for greater prosperity in Europe and beyond. It was therefore right that the European Union recognised Russia as a market economy.
Also in the past six months, in the Balkans, Serbia and Montenegro have moved peacefully and uniquely towards a new constitutional relationship. Conservative Members welcome President Kostunica's ratification of the new federal agreement between Serbia and Montenegro. Everything possible must be clone to help to ensure that Serbia and Montenegro stay on a course of peaceful political development and that the political changes taking place in Yugoslavia are not allowed to stand in their way.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned enlargement. As he knows, we support enlargement and believe that it is one of the most important European developments. Our support stems from our experience in government when the communist bloc in the east finally collapsed, and we made it clear to the peoples of eastern Europe that Britain was their friend. Enlargement is an opportunity to promote peace and prosperity among all the nations of Europe, but it does not come without problems.
Kaliningrad remains a serious problem, and progress on devising suitable arrangements for that Russian enclave seems to have halted. The region already endures enough misery from unemployment, pollution and AIDS without the European Union adding to it by isolating it from the main mass of Russia. We must ensure that that difficult matter does not harm the relations of the Baltic states and Poland with Russia or their economies, nor should we allow Kaliningrad to become a gateway to Europe for crime. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will do all that he can to ensure that that problem is turned into an opportunity both for the European Union and for Russia.
Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman referred to his party's policy of having for many years favoured

173
enlargement of the European Union. Can he therefore explain why Conservative Members consistently opposed measures to introduce institutional reforms such as majority voting, without which effective enlargement would be impossible?
Mr. Ancram: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ever listens to debates in this House, because we have covered this topic on many occasions. Sometimes the Government tell us that the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement, and sometimes they tell us that it is not. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Nice was about much more than enlargement, and later I shall turn to other matters about which Conservative Members have genuine and justified concerns.
The opportunity that enlargement presents is not guaranteed. Signs of opposition have recently arisen in the European Union, and those reservations must be addressed. If the target of 2004 is missed, many eastern European countries will justly feel that the European Union made promises to them in bad faith, and some may be disinclined to carry on with what is proving a costly and burdensome administrative process. That would be regrettable, and we should seek to reverse that trend.
Time and again we have warned that the current structure of the European Union—the vast, inflexible mass of the acquis—is not conducive to building a wider Europe that delivers the jobs and wealth that its peoples want. Nor does it make accession to the EU easy. It is universally acknowledged that enlargement will be financially unsustainable if the common agricultural policy and structural funding are not reformed. For instance, unreformed enlargement will increase expenditure on structural operations from £20.73 billion to £43.539 billion by 2010. There has still been too little movement towards reform.
Mr. John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the situation is made much more difficult by President Bush's determination to make the American farmer the most subsidised farmer in the world by increasing by 60 per cent. the amount of money that he receives? That undermines the position of those of us who have sought reform in that context in the European Union and does great damage to developing countries.
Mr. Ancram: I share my right hon. Friend's concern, but President Bush's actions will not bankrupt the European Union as could unreformed enlargement.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Farming communities in Poland are deeply worried that they could be flooded with cheap, subsidised produce from western Europe instead of benefiting from the CAP. Does not that necessitate fundamental reform of the CAP?
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point better than I could have. If enlargement is to work, it is essential to tackle the CAP.
It was worrying, if all too predictable, that the General Affairs Council on 10 June decided to postpone until the autumn talks on the amount of aid to be offered to the candidate countries I am aware that some progress may
174
be apparent in the mid-term, but we face the prospect of keeping to the Berlin budgetary limits only by treating the new states of the European Union as second-class members for their first 10 years while doing nothing to push through the necessary fundamental changes. That is unacceptable.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will affirm that it is essential that the outlines of CAP structural funding reform are agreed before 2004. We cannot afford to allow the CAP to continue as it is—never at the top of the EU's list of priorities—or to become entrenched by enlargement. That would do damage almost all round.
Roger Casale: The right hon. Gentleman claimed that institutional reform was not necessary for enlargement. Not only the Government but the House said that such reform was important for enlargement when hon. Members debated the EU scrutiny report that recommended it. Every Government and Parliament that I can think of in Europe also believes that. Most important, the applicant countries believe that institutional reform is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If he does not accept that institutional reform is necessary for enlargement, does he accept that it is necessary for reforming the CAP? Or is he, once again, willing the ends without the means?
Mr. Ancram: I am rather puzzled by that. I said that the Nice treaty was not necessary for enlargement. At one stage, the President of the Commission agreed with that. However, I did not say anything further. Fulfilling the target of enlargement by 2004 is a challenge; failure to achieve it would rightly lead to harsh judgments of the member states' Governments.
The second challenge is that of making enlargement a success. We must ensure that the effect of accession on the new member states resembles that on Portugal rather than that on East Germany. It would pose problems for old and new members if enlargement's main consequence was to encourage a mass movement of workers from east to west rather than a mutually beneficial enrichment of expanded markets for us, and a helping hand to greater prosperity for them.
The Foreign Secretary spoke about the European meeting in Seville this weekend. I was disconcerted by his admission that he was setting off for Seville without being quite clear about what he intended to achieve when he arrived. I look forward to hearing about his intentions when the Minister for Europe has received the benefit of advice and can tell us what his officials have written in the communiqué if not yet in the Foreign Secretary's brief.
We will watch events in Seville closely this weekend to ascertain, for example, whether the Government believe in a Europe of nations or are determined to lock Britain into a centralised, supranational union. The Government appear confused. In November, the Foreign Secretary wrote:
"Nation states are and will remain the foundation of international order".
I concur with that. However, a month later, he signed up to a political union in Laeken that would establish a supranational Europe. He cannot have it both ways.

175
We will also watch for the Government's attitude in the summit to the urgent reforms that the European Union acknowledges it needs.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman quoted me accurately the first time, but will he cite the part of the text of Laeken on which he relies, and explain how I signed up to it?
Mr. Ancram: It is my understanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Perhaps hon. Members will listen. The Laeken agreement constituted the first time that political union was stipulated in terms of a treaty. The Government signed up to it. The right hon. Gentleman should check that or take advice so that perhaps the Minister for Europe can clarify the matter at the end of the debate. He will find that I am right.
Mr. Straw: If we are to have effective debate, it is important to present the sources. No one signed up to the idea of a supranational Eurostate; we would not have done that. The Laeken declaration simply sets a rather discursive agenda for the convention on the future of Europe. It contains nothing that could form the basis for the right hon. Gentleman's claim.
Mr. Ancram: Is the Foreign Secretary telling us that there is a difference between a political union and a supranational state? He will have to be a casuist to prove that point.
I return to what I was saying about the second challenge. We shall also watch to see what attitude the Government take in the summit towards the urgent reforms that the European Union itself recognises it needs. We hope that that issue will not be ducked. As we have heard today, the Government have proposed a number of reforms to the European Council. When I first heard some of them, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was joking.
The Government's answer to the popular feeling of alienation from European institutions is, apparently, to create an even more remote and more permanent presidency. That may bring some short-term comfort to the retirement plans of the Prime Minister, but it will do nothing to bring Europe closer to its peoples. If we look at the sum of the rest of the proposals that we heard about today, they merely tinker with the problem faced by Europe. By contrast, one of the few decent ideas that the Government have put forward—the creation of a subsidiarity panel—is one that they have taken from us, and we are most appreciative of the compliment.
We have also heard that the Foreign Secretary is going to discuss asylum, with which he dealt at some length in his speech. I welcome—along with their seeking a workable common approach—the Government's plans to discuss the implementation of bilateral agreements such as the one that we had with France until 1997. We have been calling for that for the last eight months. A higher level of co-operation between European Governments on asylum is a necessity, and bilateral agreements are one of the most effective ways forward.
The Council will also provide an opportunity to take in hand the Commission's paper on the reform of EU governance. We welcome some of the proposals. We support, for example, the plans to consult sooner and more
176
deeply with interested parties on legislation. That policy is long overdue, and needs to be extended to other institutions within the Union. We certainly endorse the need to simplify and shorten the acquis communautaire. Indeed, we would go further. However, if the Commission can cut it from about 80,000 to 60,000 pages, that will at least be a start. If that had been done earlier, it would have made enlargement easier.
The Commission's proposals on the future shape and powers of European institutions, however, show little understanding of the need for more democracy in the EU. They fail to recognise that the nation states, not supranational bureaucracies, are the fundamental elements of the European Union. Surprisingly, the Government have said that they are "very relaxed" about the proposals. Are they seriously happy with the general centralising drift that has come out of the Commission?
Mr. Foulkes: I want to know whether the shadow Foreign Secretary is serious in what he is saying. Will he remind me which Prime Minister, and which Government, forced the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act through the House on a three-line Whip and a timetable motion?
Mr. Ancram: It is a pleasure to be able to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being appointed a Privy Councillor. His voice is no quieter from the Back Benches than it was from the Dispatch Box in his time there. I have to say to him, however, that what we are seeing from the Commission—there is no point in ducking this—is essentially a move further to centralise the way in which Europe works, at a time when it should be moving in the opposite direction. I am alarmed that the Government say that they are relaxed about this, and I hope that we shall hear more about their real view of what is happening.
The Government like to claim that they are constructively engaged in Europe; I think that they used to refer to that as winning for Britain in Europe. As usual, the claims and the reality are very different. The Lisbon process—to which the Foreign Secretary referred in glowing terms again today and which is good for Britain—is badly behind schedule. In some areas, the Government are positively working against the goals of Lisbon. With the active connivance of Labour's MEPs in Brussels, unnecessary, burdensome and costly European legislation continues to flow in our direction, undermining the Lisbon process. The vibrations directive is a good example of such interference from Brussels. Nor did signing up to the social chapter do Britain's competitiveness any favours.
The Government are hardly winning the battle of ideas in Europe. We were assured by the Minister for Europe's predecessor—the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), whom I am pleased to see in his place—that the charter of fundamental rights would not be legally binding. However, it is increasingly being used in European Court of Justice jurisprudence. That flies in the face of undertakings that were given about its nature.
Mr. Vaz: The language that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted today in respect of the convention that was created to reform the European Union is exactly the same as that used by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), in talking about the European

177
charter of fundamental rights. The charter is not legally binding; all that it is, and will remain, is a set of rights that the citizens of Europe are entitled to expect.
Mr. Ancram: I have not mentioned the convention—I will in due course—and the hon. Gentleman cannot pre-empt what I am going to say about it. I repeat that the European Court of Justice is a European institution, and its jurisprudence now uses the charter of fundamental rights. To describe it as not legally binding is to indulge in semantics. If it is being used by the European Court of Justice as part of its jurisprudence, it is essentially part of the law by which we are being governed.
The Government keenly support the European security and defence policy, but yet again there is a lack of real effectiveness. At Laeken in December, the Belgian Foreign Minister said that the ESDP
"must declare itself operational without such a declaration being based on any true capability",
and that it was being put into action without being able to deliver. What, therefore, is the point of it? That is a further classic example of the gap between European rhetoric and European reality. As we know, this Government are past masters of such matters.
Nowhere is the Government's drift towards further integration clearer than in the common foreign and security policy. Of course, the benefits of foreign policy co-operation are clear where such co-operation is in all member states' interests. However, attempts to enforce co-operation are flawed and ultimately unworkable, as is any attempt to coerce what is naturally incoercible. Instead, we should be seeking to entrench flexibility, the value of which we saw after 11 September. This Government were realistic about what was required to meet that threat. The Prime Minister helped to build an international coalition that allowed nations to contribute at the level at which they felt happiest. Europe was able to react at different levels of enthusiasm and participation. The attempts of the most ardent European integrationists to seek a common policy—which, on that occasion, would have involved sailing at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy—were rightly resisted. Various countries had different views on the most appropriate response, so in practice a common line or policy was impossible. The farce of the mini-summits—not least the famously gate-crashed Downing street dinner—also showed that, quite understandably, smaller European countries would not stand for having their foreign policy dictated by larger ones.
Likewise, the varying responses to the crisis in the middle east illustrate that European nations' views on what is the proper reaction differ greatly. I am glad that the crisis will be discussed in Seville, and I endorse the Foreign Secretary's comments on the outrage that took place in Israel this morning. We agree with the Government's current position on the middle east, but in recent EU discussions on this issue, only Germany took the same view. We were in a minority, and if a real working common foreign policy with a single voice had been in place, we might now be imposing sanctions on Israel. Would the Foreign Secretary really have been happy to go down that route?
From the outset, the common foreign policy has been marked by a lack of direction. Much play was made of the EU's decision at the beginning of February to impose
178
targeted sanctions on the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary famously described it as "clear, unambiguous and unanimous". So what happened? Just last week, the International Crisis Group issued a report on Zimbabwe. Its author says:
"Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing. It's a joke. They threatened Mugabe that if he stole the election they would come down hard on him. Mugabe must be laughing at them".
What an indictment. Yet again, the contrast between the rhetoric of an effective common foreign policy and the reality could not be clearer. If Europe is being tough on Zimbabwe, why are not the targeted sanctions being made to work? Why can prominent Mugabe aides visit Europe? Why are the families of those on the travel ban permitted to visit Europe? The Foreign Secretary will remember telling the House on 21 March:
"We have taken the action that it has been necessary to take because of the illegitimacy of the Mugabe regime."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 449.]
That action clearly has not worked, with Augustine Chihuri in France last month and Mugabe in Italy this month. It is a farce. What steps will the Foreign Secretary take to convince his European colleagues to extend the sanctions regime and to ensure that it begins to bite? Will that be discussed in Seville? If it is not, that would be a disgrace.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 8 August is off-the-farm day for all white farmers in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that Seville would be the ideal opportunity to discuss further sanctions?
Mr. Ancram: I agree wholly with my hon. Friend that further sanctions should be discussed, but more must be done. We want effective action from the EU. That is what we were promised in February. It has not happened and a disaster is now unfolding in Zimbabwe. The EU has a role to play and it should start playing it now.
Ms Stuart: I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have a common European foreign policy or not. He seems to be arguing on the one hand that it is not effective enough and on the other that we should not have one.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady should have listened to what I said earlier. I said that there will be times when co-operation on certain matters will be beneficial, and Zimbabwe is an example of that. I want that co-operation to work, because there is no point in the Council of Ministers uttering brave declarations if they achieve nothing. I hope that we will see some effect on this occasion.
In recent weeks, we have seen in the press the chaos that characterises European foreign and security policy. Convention chairman Giscard D'Estaing has called for a common European diplomatic service. That is quite an advance. Romano Prodi wants to push ahead with a single European foreign policy. The Foreign Secretary, in a recent speech, appeared to want to redefine sovereignty better to fit that model. But at the same time we are told that the Government really support the concept of a Europe of nations. Which is it? Whom should we believe? The message is now so unclear and the language so confused that it is no wonder that ordinary people feel cut off from their European masters and are suspicious and mistrustful.

179
The Europe that we need, and that people in Europe want, is one that is modern and decentralised, that trusts its members and does not constantly try to aggregate more of their powers to itself. We want an EU that is outward looking. We believe that Europe must change in a way that brings it closer to the people who live in it. The idea that seeing Ministers voting on television will achieve that is laughable. That belief in change is now matched by a realisation throughout Europe that the old EU, driven from the top down, will no longer achieve it. Recent referendums and other electoral tests have demonstrated the growing sense of alienation. If Europe is to carry true democratic legitimacy and accountability, it must find a way to reconnect with its peoples. Europe itself has realised the need for that.
For a start, there is now the convention on the future of Europe. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for representing our parliamentary party so effectively on it. [Interruption.] Two Members from opposite sides of the House represented this Parliament. I am thanking my right hon. Friend for the splendid job that he did. I am happy to pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): For the splendid job she did.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady may well have done a splendid job, although that might by judged by different lights on either side of the House. At least the convention represents a realisation of the need for consultation in building the future European Union. However, that consultation cannot be narrow in scope or agenda. It must address all the fundamental problems facing the EU today—in particular, the glaring democratic deficit. Early experience, even from a distance, suggests that it will not do so. That is why we need a more fundamental reform and review of how the EU currently works. Such a review is necessary before genuine constructive reform can take place. It must be robust and comprehensive. It must be ready to root out that which is not working, and strengthen that which needs to be improved. It must be ready to revisit and re-examine the directives and treaties that make up the acquis if it is to do the job that must be done. There can be no sacred cows, no no-go areas, no sealed vaults. Anything less would be not just a massive missed opportunity, but an abdication of the chance to deal with the real issues in Europe today.
The EU stands at an historic crossroads. Britain would not benefit from standing aside from the process of change; withdrawal from the European Union would not be to our advantage. We would lose jobs and influence. But this Government's determined pursuit of a supranational union with ever more powers and responsibilities assigned to it is not the answer either.
Our view is clear. It is a view of a Europe that is constructive, responsive, positive and forward-looking; a Europe that seeks to work in partnership with the United States rather than in rivalry with it; a Europe that abandons its current anti-American rhetoric and its unreal aspirations to be a superpower itself.
Europe needs to change to bring itself back in touch with the peoples and Parliaments of the nations of Europe. They are the original and abiding source of its legitimacy
180
Reform should aim to put them back at the heart of the European Union. Yet even today Romano Prodi has signalled his determination to take more control from EU Governments, and to give the Commission more powers. That is the very opposite of what is needed to deal with the democratic deficit that lies at the heart of Europe's problems today.
We need a partnership of sovereign nations, bound by the single market and the rules of free trade—a partnership that deals at European level with issues best dealt with at that level, such as pollution, but in other respects works at different levels of participation and involvement, tailoring common ventures and aspirations to the national interest and doing things in the way that is best for each nation. We need a Europe that recognises and maximises national strengths constructively.
"Top-down" Europe has failed. We must return to the concept of a "bottom-up" Europe, a Europe that starts and finishes with the needs and aspirations of the people of Europe rather than the ambitions of its bureaucrats. That is the challenge of Europe today. That is the challenge that we are ready to take up. That is the challenge that even France's new Prime Minister, Mr. Raffarin, seems ready to adopt in relation to France.
Our Government are so obsessed with their place and status in the Councils of Europe that they have turned their back on that challenge. We urge them to think again before it is too late.
5.2 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: One area of policy in which we are patently not all Thatcherites now—along with almost every other—is Europe. Today's debate gives us a chance to take stock of the topical challenges that face the European Union.
In terms of the EU's current achievements, I think the smooth and efficient introduction of notes and coins in Europe's single currency suggests that that arm of European integration is on track for success—which is not to say that I think Britain should rush in and join other eurozone countries; I happen to think that Britain's caution, and the Government's caution, is right. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tests are the right tests to apply to any decision by this country, and I strongly believe that, whenever it takes place, the economic assessment of those tests must be absolutely objective. I for one would not want any other political consideration to intervene and to influence the undertaking of the assessment that will take place some time in the next year.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend believe that joining the euro is an essential condition of Britain's being a leader in Europe, and that the question for the Government is when, not if? If he does not agree that that is the question facing the Government, why does he have it on his website?
Mr. Mandelson: That happens to be the view of the Government. I supported that policy when I was a member of the Government, and I still support it. In principle, the Government are committed to joining the single currency. That is a matter of when and not if. The timing will be determined by economic tests and considerations, not political ones

181
On the subject of the economic considerations, I cannot resist commenting on what has been happening in the foreign exchange markets in recent weeks. The euro has strengthened somewhat against sterling, which is welcome to British manufacturers, but the financial press has contained much comment that the mighty dollar is set for a steady fall against the euro. If that trend continues, one of the most awkward economic obstacles to Britain joining the euro would be on course to be overcome. The significant point is that, if we were to choose finally to lock sterling into the euro, we would no longer be at risk of doing so at too high a rate. The danger is that, if the rate were too high, and if the euro were then to appreciate sharply against the dollar, that would render us uncompetitive in the US just at the time when we faced a tough task in holding our own in European markets.
Mr. Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the supposed strengthening of the euro is merely another facet of the weakening of the dollar? Are not both the American and eurozone economies in difficulties, with the result that the British economy looks rather strong?
Mr. Mandelson: I do not deny for a moment that the performance and underlying condition of the British economy are very strong. That could strengthen the argument that we should join the eurozone and not stay out of it. However, two things may be happening: the value of the dollar may be reflecting the underlying strength of the US economy, but the market's judgment about the underlying strength and performance of the eurozone economy may be catching up with its evaluation of the euro. Both factors are significant, but the Government's economic assessment must take account of a number of others, and I do not presume to anticipate the outcome of that assessment, or when it will happen.
The value of the single market—and a single currency, which is the sensible and logical extension of the single market—together with the consolidation of peace and individual freedom in a united Europe is the reason why I believe that we should remain on course to admit 10 additional members to the EU in 2004. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that negotiations should be finalised in Copenhagen in December, and I am encouraged to hear of his commitment to achieving that.
In the context of those negotiations, Britain is right to press now for a political commitment to reform the common agricultural policy at a future date. If the EU is to make a success of enlargement, deal with the many very serious strategic challenges that it faces and ensure that resources are used properly and for the real benefit of its citizens, reform of the CAP is long overdue. That tough decision must be faced sooner rather than later. However, I am not suggesting that reform can feasibly precede enlargement, nor be a binding condition of whether enlargement goes ahead.
The other week I was speaking in Poland, arguing for a strong commitment to a constructive social dimension in the European Union. It was clear in my discussions with Polish leaders and Government members that this is a decisive moment in Europe's history, not just for Poland but for all candidate countries. If we miss this chance to reunite Europe, it may not come again. I suspect that
182
opposition to membership would be bound to grow in all the candidate countries that we would so badly let down were we to funk this challenge.
Much could be said about the many issues facing the European Union, but I should like to touch on just three—the work of the convention on the future of Europe and the need to strengthen the political legitimacy of the EU; the difficulties created by mass migration, how we deal with asylum and the need to police the EU's border; and Europe's attitude to the rest of the world, particularly its relationship with the United States, which I do not think is being handled in an entirely constructive and happy way.
First, I very much admire the way in which the convention is going about its job. Recently I have had the opportunity, on two occasions, of hearing lengthy presentations from members of the convention, including one of its vice-presidents, Giulliano Amato, the former Prime Minister of Italy. I believe that the convention is asking the right questions and seems to be establishing the right parameters in strengthening the role of national Parliaments and Governments in securing greater transparency and accountability in the EU's operation, without damaging the Commission's essential stewardship of the EU and its ability to work in the interests of all. The Commission has an indispensable role to play and I do not need to rehearse the arguments for that. Strengthening the hand of national Governments and Parliaments should not and need not be done at the expense of the indispensable role that the Commission plays.
There are two key points of which the convention should not lose sight in developing its plans. First, we will not achieve the popular consent that is required for Europe to contemplate further integration if we do not devise new mechanisms against unnecessary centralisation in the European Union. Many people talk a great game when it comes to subsidiarity and make a huge rhetorical commitment to it without demonstrating equal commitment to the machinery that is needed to make it a reality. Subsidiarity and a new political mechanism to enforce it, is not a technical issue. It goes to the heart of Europe's political problems. I am not arguing against centralisation in certain respects where it is appropriate and properly agreed. Indeed, healthier and stronger subsidiarity would do a great deal to legitimise that centralisation which everyone has agreed should go ahead.
Secondly, I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that we must find ways to ensure that decision making in Brussels is not only more visible but more political. That is the essence of the case for abolishing the obscurity of the six-month rotating presidency and for having an elected president of the European Council for a significant period. It is not to find a resting home for some, no doubt distinguished, elder statesman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"]—who may or may not be emerging from first-rate public service in his own country, from whatever part of the continent and at whatever time in the future.
The case is that there should be politicians on the Council who are clearly identifiable and who can take responsibility. People could hear directly from those politicians and would know what they were dealing with, and there would thus be a measure of the politics that are going on in Brussels, instead of the foggy, hazy miasma of bureaucracy that people sometimes have the impression substitutes for effective political working in and around

183
the Commission. That is also the argument for more open voting in the Council of Ministers, even with all the limitations that the Foreign Secretary described, and for rationalising the present bureaucratic paradise of councils, committees and working groups that is as opaque as it is slow moving in bringing the European Union to proper and expeditious decisions and agreements on many and pressing matters.
Behind the reforms is the idea that directly accountable politicians should be in charge of Europe's direction and that they should be seen to be in charge, working in tandem with the motor of the European Commission. As I said, I do not want the Commission to be weakened. It could be strengthened—it could certainly be legitimized—if it were seen to be working in a clearer political framework in the EU.
On migration—the second issue that I want to discuss—the Government are right to insist on the EU facing up to its responsibilities. We cannot solve the problems of asylum, migration and human trafficking simply by relying on our own national border controls. The problems are common for the European Union as a whole and strengthening the EU's common border is an urgent priority. The need will be even more acute when relatively poor countries, such as Poland and others, become EU members in 2004.
Simply lecturing our partners on how they should live up to their responsibilities—as some people on the continent and indeed in this country do—will not work. It is not realistic to say to the Greeks, for example, "You deal with all the boatloads of illegals landing on your islands and solve our problems for us". Our partners—Greece is not the only one—need practical help to tackle human trafficking across their borders. We should be ready to establish the proper working of joint action teams and to use the EU budget to guarantee the security of the EU's common border. The states of the EU, acting together, can be a more effective force in stemming the flow through transit countries, tackling the causes of migration at source and securing an increased number of returns where illegal migrants are shown to have no case for asylum.
This must not become an exercise in feeding people's xenophobia in those countries, and I feel that quite passionately. I believe that addressing those issues—tackling them head on and having a proper debate about them—and formulating balanced and sensible policies is the only way to head off creeping xenophobia in Europe. I do not believe that formulating policies of that kind needs to or should conflict with the liberal and humanitarian values that we rightly uphold, not least because Europe needs some economic migrants to offset an ageing population and, indeed, to supply workers for our public services, for example.
We should be proud, too, as Britons and Europeans, of our tradition of offering a safe refuge from persecution for those genuinely in need of asylum, but I stress that that is an argument for managing our common borders with more efficiency, not for continuing with the present, unacceptable chaos, which is inevitably and rightly causing growing public concern and is a very real political threat not to the left or the right but to our democratic and proper ways of working in Europe, and we have to face up to that.
184
The third issue that I want to touch on concerns the rest of the world outside Europe. Just to state the obvious, Europe faces considerable threats and considerable opportunities in the rest of the world. The organising principle that governed the international system for many decades following the second world war was, of course, that of the cold war—east versus west, freedom versus communism—and every international problem was seen through that model, through the prism of that conflict. Everyone lined up on either side and the international system was designed to mediate between those two competing blocs and ideologies to find some resolution of international problems and issues—which, more often than not, it did—but the cold war has ended with the collapse of the iron curtain and the Berlin wall, and we need to find a new organising principle around which the international system can revolve.
The organising principle that we now want to create in the post-cold-war era is one of order versus disorder. We will not bring order to any part of the world or to any regional conflict, dealing with any rogue state or integrating any pre-modern or failing state into the international system, nor will we succeed in spreading economic opportunity to the world—redressing and correcting the dark side of globalisation, which is manifested in so many ways and among so many people in different parts of the world—without America and Europe working very closely together.
America and Europe have worked very closely and successfully in sorting out the problems in Europe—we are still doing so in south-eastern Europe, in the Balkans—but Europe and America now have to work just as closely and effectively in helping to sort out problems beyond the European continent.
Mr. Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I agree entirely about the need for a new order and stability in the world. Would he not agree that the post-war world created at Bretton Woods was much more sensible, orderly and stable than the world of global financial markets, which seem inherently unstable and much more difficult to control?
Mr. Mandelson: The world of Bretton Woods was one that we were able to create, operate and manage very well, from which we derived considerable benefits. The world of globalisation is not man-made in that sense, but it will not go away. It is the way in which the world economy is operating, and its rules, what governs it, its demands and the speed at which it brings economic change to all parts of the world—the way in which problems and tremors in financial markets or in certain regions of the world are felt throughout other financial markets and other regions throughout the world—that constitute the world in which we live.
We need to design an international system to manage, cope with and respond to the world in which we live. To state the obvious, we have not succeeded in the post-cold-war world, at least so far, in creating an international system that is capable of standing up to and managing the ferocious challenges that globalisation is creating. I am talking not just about the social and political effects of economic globalisation but about disease, illegal drugs, transnational crime and environmental degradation. Whatever international issue one cares to identify, none will be solved by either

185
America or Europe acting independently of the other. That is the common feature of the challenges with which we are now faced internationally. International terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are the new and additional threats. My fear is that EU member states are simply not appraising those external threats to our security with the realism and urgency in all cases that those threats demand.
I sometimes think that if the events of 11 September had happened in Europe rather than America, we would still be weighing up the evidence about who or which group was responsible and debating the pros and cons of whether to respond. I suspect that, had those events happened on European soil, the anniversary of 11 September would come around this year without us having acted in response. That is due partly to a lack of will and decision-making capacity on these matters in Europe. Also, however, some European nations—the majority, in fact—are not facing up to the need to equip themselves adequately if Europe is to play the full partnership role with the United States that I would like us to undertake.
It is no part of my argument that we are under-prepared or ill-equipped and, therefore, we should leave the responsibility to America. My argument is that Europe has a very important role to play, and, at the moment, it is punching below its weight. It needs to increase its decision-making and technological capability to an extent to punch its true and full weight as a partner—not as an equal partner, of course, but, none the less, as a partner—with the United States. Clearly, there is a huge technology gap between Europe and the United States. I do not suggest for one moment that we can, would or will close that technology gap. That is unrealistic. At the moment, however, most European nations are barely able to move or even talk to each other in terms of their technological capability, let alone engage directly with an enemy whom we must confront.
We are not lap dogs of the United States. We will have our own perspective on certain issues. At the moment, we take a slightly different perspective on the middle east, where we see a more pressing need for diplomatic and political action in that conflict. We do not seek to rival the United States in its power or world role—that is not realistic—but we share fundamental values and interests with it in winning the war against terrorism, in bringing democracy and human rights to nations and regions where people are denied both and in integrating Russia and China into the international community of nations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) touched on the issue of international financial institutions, and we share with the United States the aim of modernising them. We need successor, modernised, relevant international financial institutions to rise to the challenge of the new global problems and the poverty that still blights many parts of the globe. We have successfully to complete the Doha round. Those and other challenges have one thing in common: they are global issues that Europe must address beyond its continent. It must co-operate with the United States in doing that.
I know that the Government are acutely aware of all those international challenges and I strongly commend the approach that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team have taken to them. When it comes to
186
dealing with external threats, we must seek to engage the French and the Germans with particular seriousness. The year 2004 will mark the centenary of the entente cordiale—yet another anniversary—so let us plan to make it a major milestone in British-French defence co-operation while, crucially, encouraging Germany to assume its proper share of the ever-growing burden of Europe's world role. We need to do that if Europe is to punch its full weight.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's remarks that Britain's relations with Europe have been literally transformed over the past five years. We have a position of respect and influence that would have been unimaginable under the previous Government. What do we do with that influence? How do we build it and use it to shape the future direction of the European Union?
In a further response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), I have no doubt that, in the long term, we will need to be inside the single currency—I hope that that will not shock him too much—if we are to maximise the benefits of our position in Europe and strengthen Europe's effectiveness. However, that must be determined by Britain's national economic interest and not by political prejudice—whether the Government's or that of powerful foreign nationals however mighty they may be or appear to be.
Mr. Davidson: Name them.
Mr. Mandelson: No, a thunderbolt would strike the back of my neck and I might end up making a premature—definitely premature for some—return to the Front Bench.
In the meantime, I want to encourage the Government to continue on their present course, maintaining a strong influence for our country in Europe and pressing the case for reform, especially economic reform. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was right to highlight Lisbon. We overlook and shuffle Lisbon, and Cardiff for that matter, to one side at this continent's economic peril. Economic reform needs to take place alongside reform of the EU' s working methods and institutions. We also need to forge that necessary and strong transatlantic relationship with America. The interests of America and Europe do coincide, and I strongly believe that that should govern our approach to our membership of the EU.
5.35 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: First, may I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Foreign Secretary's comments about the tragic events in the middle east? It is yet another dark day for that part of the world. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues will use this weekend in Seville to focus their minds on that problem yet again. May I also apologise on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is unable to be here this afternoon? He sent a note to the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary in anticipation of his absence and hopes to attend to hear the concluding speeches.
This important debate has been good humoured and good natured and many of the big issues have been brought into the open. The right hon. Member for

187
Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said that this is a decisive moment for the enlargement process. I agree. I would also characterise it as a time when there is an uneasy atmosphere in Europe. Electorates have been uncertain in key parts of the Union in the past few weeks and some of the big decisions have to be taken when there is not a great deal of room for manoeuvre before enlargement in 2004. The different factors are coming together to create quite a bit of pressure on those who will meet in Seville later this week.
The issues before the representatives are fairly obvious. We are two years from enlargement and massive changes are in prospect as a consequence. Reform of the EU and its institutions was already necessary, and enlargement makes that more critical. Specific policies have been mentioned. Immigration and asylum policies are at the forefront of the minds of many Governments. We would not dispute that the issue is of legitimate concern. However, we are worried that an element of realpolitik has promoted the issue so far up the agenda. It certainly grabs headlines, but it may also be used to obscure other equally pressing matters.
Although that issue may dominate the agenda in Seville, others will probably dare not show their face—the single currency, Gibraltar and Irish ratification of the Nice treaty, for example. The challenge for the summit is to emerge from all the detail in which it will undoubtedly be caught up. It cannot fall into a reactionary trap and ape the right of Europe. It must show leadership.
In recent days and weeks the United Kingdom's position on immigration and asylum has been set out by senior Ministers. The Prime Minister wrote to the Spanish presidency on 16 May urging it to put asylum and immigration at the top of the agenda. The Home Secretary said:
"If democratic politicians fail to tackle the difficult issues posed by immigration and asylum people will increasingly embrace extremist solutions".
The rhetoric is one thing, but the worry must be that in an attempt to outflank some of the less attractive parts of European politics, we might be seen to adopt their policies too.
These issues are undoubtedly very delicate, and we must be careful. Language like "swamping" and fears about the loss of cultural identity do not tackle the core issues. Just as important, surely, is the inability of Governments to co-operate on cross-border matters when they arise. The form of politics based on the lowest common denominator is depressing and rarely effective, but to have national Governments going their own way cannot possibly be the answer. The failure of the authorities in the United Kingdom and France to resolve the issues of Sangatte should be a warning to us all.
Of course, this policy area is ideally suited to joint working, and the Foreign Secretary set out the history of that from the Tampere summit in 1999. We believe that member states should be prepared to co-operate effectively on immigration and asylum in response to mutual and international concerns. Following the Amsterdam treaty, many of those policies have been developed, but we are still rather stuck where we are dealing with common minimum standards rather than eyeing up the common policy, which could still be a good distance away, although this afternoon the Foreign Secretary expressed confidence that more progress will be made.
188
Two specific policy proposals have been floated recently. I was glad that the Foreign Secretary chose not to dwell on them. One is for European border guards. Surely there is a huge difference between co-operation and support for existing members or applicant states in securing external borders and the concept of having capped Euro-guards at the frontiers. Perhaps that idea is the product of over-imaginative spinning, but even if it could ever be attractive, it is well ahead of its time.
More important, however, is the other proposal doing the rounds, which is that aid to particular countries may be linked to their acceptance of the return of failed asylum applicants. It was not clear to me from what the Foreign Secretary said whether this is his favoured approach. Do those who propose it intend it to apply to all Governments, including those of the failed states, or only those countries involved in trafficking, where the police force may turn a blind eye? The Government need to remember the reality of the countries from which many of those people come.
We must not allow the rhetoric of the right throughout Europe to influence that decision. As the Foreign Secretary said, the evidence is that asylum applications are levelling off, and their number is half what it was 10 years ago—although from the state of the political debate one would not necessarily appreciate that. Most refugees and people in difficulty come nowhere near Europe. Many millions suffer much more hardship and poverty thousands of miles from the European Union. Cutting off aid to some of those countries as a punishment for their refusal to comply with European standards on asylum seeking and migration would certainly be rough justice, and we seek clarification from the Minister who will wind up the debate about precisely what position the Government will be taking on the issue in Seville and elsewhere.
Asylum and immigration are closely linked to enlargement, another big theme that will, of course, be extensively discussed at the Seville summit. All European mainstream parties support enlargement, but there are undercurrents of concern about the movement of people from central Europe into other countries. Because the political climate in Europe has changed in recent months, we need to be careful that excuses are not found to raise the barrier to entry as the negotiations approach their conclusion. Similar fears were expressed when Spain and Portugal joined the European Union, but the migration did not materialise, although that may not stop some arguing the case.
Enlargement debates will rightly focus attention on many other issues. Enlargement has been a long-held goal of UK foreign policy under both Conservative and Labour Governments and has enjoyed cross-party support. Significant progress has been made in recent months, as we approach the deadline of completing the negotiations by the Copenhagen summit—nine years after the last gathering in that city, which set out the criteria by which applicant countries would be judged. The Spanish presidency has made significant progress, and reports suggest that 80 per cent. of the acquis is now resolved. That is no mean achievement, but we still cannot take the outcome for granted. Questions have been raised in existing member states and, possibly more worryingly, in applicant countries as well.

189
Perhaps we are in danger of taking for granted some of the fundamental reasons why we all believe in the European Union. The benefits of strengthening security, entrenching democracy and underpinning prosperity have been the key principles for nearly 50 years. When we worry about the minutiae of agriculture, we may be in danger of forgetting those key principles, even though agriculture as an issue runs the biggest risk of being the block to the successful completion of the negotiations.
Although 80 per cent. of the negotiations may have been completed, we in Europe have developed a tendency to postpone a difficult decision. The finances of the common agricultural policy and how they will apply after enlargement will not be tackled until after the German elections. Likewise, the proposed mid-term review of the CAP as a whole is not to be undertaken until later in the year. That may be understandable and pragmatic, but given that the CAP is the biggest financial issue facing the conclusion of the negotiations, leaving just weeks before the self-imposed deadline makes it tight, to say the least. None the less, it is extremely important that CAP reform is developed and success achieved. When the Minister winds up, it would be helpful if he would say why he is confident that the reform of the CAP and of CAP finances will be resolved.
I mentioned the need for Irish ratification. Since we last debated these matters in the Chamber, there has been an Irish election and Mr. Ahern has been comfortably returned to government—more comfortably than was his position beforehand. We must not lose sight of the fact that when the referendum on the Nice treaty was conducted in Ireland last time round, all the political parties, whether in government or in opposition, supported the proposition, so a stronger Prime Minister may not necessarily strengthen the case.
The worry now must be whether there is a plan B or some stunt that will be pulled out of the hat if the worst comes to the worst and the Irish reject ratification a second time. All the rhetoric suggests that that will not happen. Perhaps that is a way of impressing on the Irish electorate the obligation to ratify the treaty on this second occasion. However, when European electorates have been told recently what they should be thinking or doing, they have had a nasty habit of doing something quite different. The Government must face up to that. If we can get some insight into what will happen if the treaty is not ratified, that will help us all to understand the process much more clearly.
The future of Europe is the tag line for the convention that has been set up to contemplate many of the structural changes that are necessary to take account of the changing face of Europe not only because of enlargement, but largely as a consequence of the difference between a European Union of 15 states and one of 25 states in about two years' time. The Laeken summit set up the convention. Assuming that they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who have been representing this place at the convention alongside Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson from another place.
190
Europe needs reform. With enlargement coming along, there is no prospect of sustainable development of the EU unless we have that reform. Some different ideas have been bandied about this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats would welcome an enhanced role for the national and European Parliaments in the reformed Europe, not least in terms of greater scrutiny. I listened carefully to what was said about the Foreign Secretary's bold initiative on televising voting at summits of the Council of Ministers. If the only aspect of this place that could be seen on television was the voting—not that many people watch this place on television anyway—our chances of enlivening democracy and people's interest would be rather limited. Surely, that cannot be a serious answer to the underlying problem.
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I know how difficult it is to seek to influence any debate in the Council of Ministers. This place struggles to have any scrutiny role with regard to Ministers from particular delegations, unless it is through the tabling of parliamentary questions asking the Government to set out their version of events and of what was discussed and agreed. That is a partial process, however, and it is not particularly helpful.
Ms Stuart: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment that televising the Council of Ministers is only one step. Does he accept that the fact that national Parliaments will know how their Ministers vote, so that, if they do not vote in the anticipated way, they can hold them to account, is a significant step forward?
Mr. Moore: I accept that. In being slightly scornful of the proposal, I do not wish to rubbish it completely. However, the fact that it is being heralded as a great move forward highlights the rather pathetic state of the development of accountability and transparency in the EU.
We are also hearing ideas about team presidencies, on which we are rather short of detail. The Minister has a burgeoning in-tray, but I am sure that he will be hoping to flesh out that proposal as well. Currently, it conjures up only inelegant images of three-legged baton racers, none of whom is quite sure who is in charge at any given moment.
The review of European policy is clearly important for us all at this time. The debate at the convention will be important and I know that many in this House and in another place are trying to follow its proceedings as closely as possible. As a party, the Liberal Democrats are in the process of reviewing our policies in this area, and the Conservatives have even launched a website about the future of Europe. What, then, of the Government? We have seen no White Paper about this major development in Europe; indeed, not even a Green Paper is in prospect. After Laeken, the Government were supposedly committed to launching a great debate about the future of Europe. I suppose we must ask ourselves whether this is it, because there has been very little other evidence of it in the wider country.
Many Euro-barometer polls are used to track attitudes to Europe and many of the related issues. Such a poll has recently exposed the United Kingdom as the least knowledgeable country about the EU and its institutions. Almost a third of United Kingdom respondents said that they knew nothing or almost nothing about EU policies and institutions, and 73 per cent. said that they had received no information about the single currency.

191
In a message on the Commission website that has been set up specifically to inform the people of Europe about the debate on the future of the EU, the Prime Minister writes:
"we need to ensure that European Citizens feel real ownership of the EU's activities".
He goes on to state:
"the people who really matter in this great debate are not the politicians or the institutions or the academics, but the people of Europe themselves."
Hear, hear to that, but how can people participate in the debate if the Government are not prepared to discuss the issues throughout the country?
Before this debate, I took the opportunity to review the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website to see what it was doing to promote discussion about Europe more widely in the country. One very helpful section states:
"The government has set out its approach to the Future of Europe debate in various keynote speeches".
Particular reference is made to a speech made by the Foreign Secretary on 21 February in The Hague, but a quick examination reveals this opening comment:
"My aim today is not to provide a blueprint for the future of Europe, but rather to ask some fundamental questions".
By any standard, that is not a great start. The Minister for Europe has characterised himself as being in listening mode, and we welcome that, as such an attitude is positive in any Government, but surely calling for the debate is not the same as having it, and now is the chance for the Government to take the lead.
The Laeken declaration set out 54 questions under four headings. It mentioned better division of competences between the institutions. Governments and Parliaments of Europe, simplification of instruments, better democracy and transparency and even the evolution of a European constitution. All those aims are worth while, from simplifying the treaties to opening up the Council of Ministers to some form of public scrutiny. The Government were party to the process that set the questions at Laeken, and in any walk of life, helping to set the questions is usually quite handy when one comes to provide the answers. When can we expect the Government's detailed response? Right now, it is not entirely clear where they think they are taking this country. Surely, the onus is on them to lead that debate.
Mr. Walter: I have been listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman. He has been asking what the Government's policy is, but I was rather hoping that we might hear about the Liberal Democrats' policy on the future of Europe.
Mr. Moore: I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been paying quite as much attention as he claims. We are in favour of a great deal of the reform agenda that is currently being discussed, and we think that there is a useful and lively debate to be had about that, but we are also in the process of reviewing our policies. I look forward to having a full debate with the hon. Gentleman in due course. Indeed, I respect the fact that, although his party has developed an interesting quietness about this subject in recent months, it claims at least to be willing to enter into the debate.
Perhaps the issue of the single currency is the reason why there is no wider debate, as it appears that the Government are still rather scared of a full-scale debate
192
on the euro—and that is not the case only because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) will be on the opposite side of the argument. As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) restated earlier, the point is that, as Government policy is to enter the single currency, it is all about timing. Yet, every attempt to find out who is doing what, what tests have been met, when we might get a debate and when we might consider enabling legislation leads us into the sand and a reference back to October 1997. That shows very impressive discipline, but it is not very helpful in winning the debate as a whole.
The single European currency has been launched since we last debated European matters on the Floor of the House. As most of us who support the concept predicted, the world has not ended and the sky has not fallen in. Perhaps that will give the Government confidence that they can now take a lead. Modesty in a politician is rare and modesty of ambition in a political party even more so. The former may be an attractive quality but the latter is certainly not. The Government have a real opportunity to take a lead on many aspects of the European debate, but Liberal Democrat Members would argue that so far they are failing to take it.
6 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: As we have heard, this weekend European Heads of Government will meet in Seville. When they met at Laeken last year, they agreed to the setting up of the convention on the future of Europe. That convention is composed of representatives of national Parliaments from the current 15 members of the EU as well as a further 13 applicant countries, including Turkey. Almost half the convention is therefore composed of people who do not have direct experience of the workings of the EU. Government representatives, Commissioners and members of the European Parliament serve on the convention.
I am privileged to serve on the convention as one of two representatives from the Houses of Parliament. May I reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we regard ourselves first and foremost as representatives of both Chambers of the Houses of Parliament? I am also a member of the procedural committee which guides the proceedings of the convention. Our terms of reference are broad, and recommendations are to be made to the intergovernmental conference in 2004. At the end of the second world war, my parents' generation could not have imagined the peaceful progress that has since taken place and the general lack of enmity between the nations and people of this continent. Football matches between Germany and England are serious, but not that serious.
We have lost our way a bit, however. Europe has to take a new direction and needs a new mandate. In considering what it is for, and who does what and why, we could learn from the formation and success of the European Coal and Steel Community. National Governments agreed on the clear objective of bringing together European coal and steel industries. An institution with supranational higher authority was set up with clear responsibilities and accountability for meeting that objective. The institutions of today's EU can be traced back to the ECSC, but too often the supranational institutions of the EU have accrued functions and taken initiatives with no authority but their own inclination to expand. That helped to drain much of the enthusiasm for the EU.

193
That must be put right. Identifying what we are trying to do is a key priority. We must decide what the appropriate institutions are, whether supranational or national, to achieve that priority, and give them the power to carry out that function but no more, then hold them accountable in an appropriate way. We do not have to start afresh, but must clarify areas where individually and collectively the countries of Europe truly benefit from co-operation and collective agreement. Those objectives are genuine, but they are not all-embracing. In too many areas, Europe has encroached on activities which should be left to the control of individual countries.
The convention is necessary because the world has changed fundamentally from the days when the most important objective appeared to be preventing Germany and France from fighting one another. The cold war, which gave western Europe a clear identity and purpose, is over. Germany is united. So what is the EU for? For many, the answer is no longer about ensuring peace but about providing a European answer to globalisation.
The EU is growing. Having started as six member states, it has grown to 15 and will soon have as many as 25, if not 27 or even 28 states. Changes need to be made simply because some decision-making processes will not work with such a large number of participants. Other changes are necessary because the dynamics of relationships have changed. It is salutary to realise that, after the next wave of planned enlargement, member states will include six large countries and one medium-sized one, accounting for 85 per cent. of the population of the EU and almost 90 per cent. of its gross national product.
What do the institutions do and why? In recent years, some EU institutions have lost their determination to act in the interest and on behalf of the union, and have taken sectoral and national interests into account in a manner which has not been constructive. Confidence has been lost in the Commission, the guardian of the treaties. Rather than focusing on their areas of responsibility and enforcing them, the institutions have sought wider powers. Even now, only 60 per cent, of internal market requirements have been implemented. The European Parliament has started to vote in overtly national blocs. The Council of Ministers has not used qualified majority voting to increase its decision-making powers, but QMV has often been used to build blocking minorities.
Do European citizens know how to make decision makers accountable? A number of them have lost faith in many of the institutions and the way in which they relate to one another. When those citizens go to the ballot box in European elections, they do not feel that they are electing a body that they can hold to account, as they do in national elections. Yet the European Parliament has become immensely important in decision making.
Given that assessment of the challenges that we face, what should the convention achieve, and how? We expect to report in spring or summer next year. For many, the real question is where the government of Europe lies. Some believe that we should aim for a Commission elected by the European Parliament. Others argue strongly that political control must reside with the Council of Ministers. We need to address practical questions, such as whether the six-monthly rotating presidency is
194
sustainable. Some countries have argued that the Council of Ministers must become much more strategic, making decisions based on a longer-term view than the six-monthly rotation, and that there are far too many sectoral councils.
Those questions are extremely valid and important, but there is a danger that we may make a big mistake in focusing on institutions rather than their functions. Before we even begin to look at who should do what, we must ask what should be done. The convention has set up several working groups to look at some issues in greater detail. I chair a group which was asked to look at the way in which the role of national Parliaments is exercised in the current EU architecture; which national arrangements function best; and whether there is a need to consider new mechanisms or procedures at national or European level. The group will meet for the first time next week, and we hope to report in October or early November. I do not want to pre-empt its conclusions, but I shall draw the attention of the House to one area that we will consider in detail—the scrutiny of European legislation.
The House of Commons, compared with the Parliaments of many other European countries, has a proud record of scrutinising EU legislation and proposals. I recommend that Members read the 20th report by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny for the Session 2001ߝ02; it addresses many of the issues to be tackled by the convention working group. I assure Members that we shall take its observations into account.
Angus Robertson: As the only member of the European Scrutiny Committee in the Chamber, may I ask whether the hon. Lady agrees with me and other Committee members that the House's position would be greatly enhanced if the scrutiny reserve was not breached by the UK Government so often? The UK Government should not enter into so-called provisional or political agreements, thus circumventing the scrutiny role that the Committee is supposed to have.
Ms Stuart: I am not a member of the European Scrutiny Committee; I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic assertion. However, time scales for decisions are sometimes so short that the European Scrutiny Committee does not have enough time, which again raises the need for the Council of Ministers to work in a far more strategic way. At the moment, six-monthly breaks mean that there is a sudden hurry at the end and things are rushed through, which is not helpful. I would not blame any single institution, but the co-ordination between them must be improved tremendously to allow proper scrutiny at various levels. However, I shall deal later with more far-reaching problems to do with scrutiny.
Mr. Walter: I note what the hon. Lady says about comparing our scrutiny procedures with those of other national Parliaments. Earlier in the debate, we talked about transparency. Does she think that the European Scrutiny Committee would be a more transparent body if it conducted its affairs in public rather than in private?
Ms Stuart: The European Scrutiny Committee conducts many of its proceedings in public and issues reports. It is almost a reflection of the number of Members

195
in the House that although we have all these Committees, there is insufficient engagement properly to scrutinise. A small number of Members do tremendous and significant work, and the House of Lords does good work too, but the system is not broad enough to allow many to take part in it.
My real argument concerns not so much procedure as the fact that scrutiny often occurs after the event. To put it at its bluntest, national Parliaments rank pretty low in the food chain of political decision making. One official recently told me that the system is an excellent burglar alarm—it tells one that one has been robbed, but there is nothing one can do about it. National Parliaments should be involved at a much earlier stage. One of the problems that we face is that on the European level we are fairly unusual in recognising Parliament as an institution in its own right which needs to be defended as such. In some ways that is our strength, but our weakness is that the House, unlike the political parties and the Government, has no way of arriving at an opinion. The European Parliament has methods of doing that, but we do not.
Mr. Hopkins: I am most interested in my hon. Friend's thoughtful speech. Will she comment on the Commission's recent suggestion that it would wish to see national Parliaments' Budgets to vet them before they are seen by the Parliaments themselves?
Ms Stuart: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall deal with that when I come to my point about the Commission.
When the working group on national Parliaments was first set up, several voices in the convention said that it was a pretty pointless exercise—why should we discuss the role of national Parliaments in the EU architecture, as national Parliaments are represented by their Governments? That demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding. Although the two things are sometimes the same, Parliaments have a voice to be heard. Laeken made a tremendous break with tradition, in that the convention represents the first time national parliamentarians have been drawn into a process of drawing up proposals for treaty changes. There has been consensus, and the working group made a significant contribution to that.
Some people expressed concern that establishing a working group on national Parliaments would set us up in competition with the European Parliament. I do not want this to be a competition—it should be a constructive relationship that allows national Parliaments to fill some of the gaps in the powers of the European Parliament. One of my Italian colleagues in the convention put it succinctly when he said:
"MEPs have power without a face, and National Parliaments have a face without power."
He was acknowledging that many people relate more to national parliamentarians, who do not have a voice in European-level decision making. I want the European Parliament and national Parliaments to learn to work together, not against each other.
In this House, changes will be required if we are to reach a point where we can arrive at a view. The House authorities have made changes, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for amending Standing Orders so as to allow for convention representatives to be questioned in public hearings by Members of both
196
Houses. That is a tremendous innovation that will assist the debate. It also goes some way to addressing the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who asked where the debate is going on. In this House, the debate is already quite extensive. Convention representatives have given evidence to Select Committees, and we are going to Northern Ireland on Thursday to talk to Assembly Members. There is debate, but it does not always the hit the newspaper headlines.
Mr. Moore: I take the hon. Lady's point. It reinforces her earlier comments about the difficulty of achieving consensus in this place. My point was that the debate in the country as a whole needs to be kick-started, and that is where the Government have a key responsibility.
Ms Stuart: It is always easy to say, "What are the Government going to do about it?" When I went to a church service in Aachen for the Charlemagne prize, which took place on one of the Catholic high feast days, I was struck by the fact that the main speech was devoted to wishing the members of the convention on the future of Europe well. That showed the extraordinary difference between public perception and the debate that goes on in mainland Europe and the extent to which the media, for example, are interested in the convention's work. I regularly get phone calls asking me what I think about Giscard d'Estaing's hotel bills, but no one wants to know anything about the details of our work. That is one example of an area in which the Government can try to do something, and not be able to do it.
I want to turn to two specific proposals that I hope the working groups will consider. First, rather than focusing solely on legislation that has already been decided on, national parliamentarians should be involved at a much earlier stage. I see no reason why it should not be possible for the Commission to come to national Parliaments to outline its proposals. That would give an early indication of the kind of legislation that is being planned and allow national Parliaments to respond at the formative stages. I want to stress that the Commission should come to us: we should not have to go to Brussels.
Angus Robertson: The hon. Lady will be aware that about 80 per cent. of the remit of the European Union involves shared competencies with devolved institutions, notably that of Scotland, which has legislative rights. Is she in favour of the Commission undertaking pre-legislative consultation with parliamentarians in Edinburgh, as well as those in the UK parliament?
Ms Stuart: That is one of the interesting questions that will be addressed not only by the working group on national Parliaments, but by the working group on subsidiarity. We must be clear about how we deal with bodies that have legislative power. I look forward to Members of the devolved Administrations contributing to that process. However, the main point is that the Commission should come to Parliaments to close the circle, because at the moment it is a line that goes straight down. I am delighted that the European Scrutiny Committee intends to make scrutiny of the Commission's annual work programme an important part of its own programme.

197
My second point comes back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) about the Commission's scrutiny of budgets. The process should be two-way, not one-way, traffic. I would find it difficult to be persuaded of the merits of my hon. Friend's case, but I am prepared to listen.
If we accept that the problem is one of a lack of clear delineation of responsibilities within the EU architecture, the question of who should police subsidiarity becomes increasingly important. Subsidiarity should be determined neither by the courts alone nor by politicians alone. There will always be issues where reference to the courts is right and proper, but in respect of many, if not most, subsidiarity is a political question, and national Parliaments should play a much more significant role in making decisions. I do not propose for one moment that we should give individual Parliaments the power of veto. However, if several Parliaments conclude that a certain EU-level proposal breaches subsidiarity, it should be taken to the Council of Ministers for a clear and open decision on whether it should be determined at national or European level.
Those are just two aspects of the working group's deliberations. All background papers for the groups are available on the convention website, and any Member who would like details can obtain them from the regular reports to the House that are issued by the two representatives of the House and are available in the Vote Office. I should be grateful for any comments from colleagues, which I will feed into the groups.
We face the paradox that all institutions in the EU architecture need to be strengthened. They need to be clear about their functions and to focus on implementing their mandate. Strengthening one institution is not enough. It would be possible to reorganise the functions of the Council of Ministers, yet continue to do too much at EU level. We can learn from history. We should consider the reason for the success of the Coal and Steel Community: it had a clear mandate, which it pursued.
The convention will be successful if our proposals allow citizens to obtain an answer to the following questions. Who does what in the EU? To whom are those who make the decisions democratically accountable? I would also argue that we must sometimes ask how we can get rid of those who made the decisions.
Roger Casale: I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of my hon. Friend's speech, but I am delighted that she is speaking in the debate, that she is the chair of the working group on national Parliaments and that she is championing their cause in the convention. I welcome her remarks about national Parliaments and I am pleased that she has received a paper from me about their role. I look forward to her comments on it.
Before my hon. Friend moves on, let me take her back to her point about the scrutiny of European legislation here. The European Scrutiny Committee has published its report, to which she may have referred. Does she agree that we need an additional mechanism apart from the Select Committee system and Standing Committees for EU scrutiny? The European Scrutiny Committee's report proposes a European Grand Committee, which would
198
perhaps meet in Westminster Hall and debate matters such as the Commission's work programme and the EU budget. Another important—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise by now the difference between an intervention and a speech. That was far too long. He is taking time that he may need later.
Ms Stuart: Thank you for that protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I read my hon. Friend's paper on the role of national Parliaments with great interest. We agree on many ideas. However, I should be reluctant to propose the establishment of yet another institution. We need to consider existing institutions much more closely and I am tempted to suggest that we should have fewer, more strategic and co-ordinated bodies. The key to achieving that is making the Council of Ministers move away from changing its priorities every six months towards taking a longer-term, more strategic view. That will have consequences for its organisation, but I believe that it may be crucial.
The first 50 years of the European Union have been a tremendous success, which we have consequently forgotten to express. We simply focus on its failures. The convention must try to ensure that we leave our children a structure that allows the success to continue. The current honest debates highlight various shortcomings. That should not be interpreted as showing that the EU is not a success. However, the shortcomings exist and we have a huge responsibility to make the EU continue for our children and serve them as well as it has served us.
6.23 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), my co-member on the convention on the future of Europe. We have eaten several lunches for our country as we jointly tour the embassies and working groups here and abroad, trying to generate interest in the convention and pick up ideas so that we can better discharge our function. The difference between us is probably one of emphasis, because I agree with many of the hon. Lady's comments about the enormous task that faces the convention. My diagnosis is perhaps more radical. I believe that the European Union faces a democratic crisis—and I shall try to justify that phrase.
The European Union is essentially technocratic. It was built up over more than 40 years on a French model, which is statist and centralised. When challenged, it justifies itself by reference to the past, especially the second world war. However, that ended nearly 60 years ago, and the European Union is now curiously old-fashioned in many ways. It retains a bloc mentality and is not fitted for the reality of modern markets, or, more importantly, the principle of self-government. It operates on a top-down principle.
The Commission retains a monopoly on initiation. That is slightly paradoxical, because it opposes other people's monopolies and tries to prevent others' monopolistic activity, but jealously guards its monopoly on initiating legislation. Three weeks ago, it published a paper for the convention in which it advanced the case for radically new policy powers on foreign affairs, security—including defence—and the economy, including budgets and

199
taxation. Today's press states that the Commission wants to reform itself—apparently without treaty sanction—into an internal cabinet. It therefore views itself as a Government in waiting, not as a secretariat or administrative body that carries out the instructions of member states or national Parliaments.
Further down the chain, the legislation is decided in Europe by an opaque and often secretive bargaining process between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. National Parliaments have no genuine input into that process. We have scrutiny rights, and Committees struggle heroically with the torrent of legislation, directives and regulations from the European Union. By and large, we simply have to accept what Brussels produces and implement it in law.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston that we are at the end of the EU food chain. We are the plankton of the European system. That is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee deals with that and tries to put Parliament back in the driving seat earlier in the process. Nobody, including Ministers, currently has any idea about what is happening.
Let us consider the example of the fridges directive, which attempts to deal with harmful gases from old fridges. The Minister for the Environment got into a dispute with the Commission and said that it had let him down badly, and did not keep him informed. Consequently, we have a fridge mountain. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 28 March to sort the matter out, or at least obtain some clarity about the position. I still await his reply. The Minister for the Environment has hundreds of civil servants to advise him, but if he does not know what is happening, what are the public to make of it all? What do the small traders, the officials in local government and the people whom we represent make of the blizzard of obscure and technical regulations?
We should have debated such matters here so that we could examine the costs, the necessary trade-offs, the feasibility and the obligations for the public, business and local authorities. We should have done that before the European process started.
The Foreign Secretary, in opening this debate, said that the problem could be solved at least in part by more transparency, and by having television cameras in the meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is essentially a gimmick. In fact, the alert and informed viewer might want to know what the Council was doing, right at the start of its proceedings, when it passed all the A-points without debate or comment. Those are the points that have been decided not by the Council but by COREPER, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, without any input from Ministers or from this House.
If we went further down into the belly of the whale, the viewer might also want to know about the working committees of the European system. These are the advisory committees, implementing committees and managing committees that take many decisions; by some estimates, they take the majority of decisions. At risk of spraining my wrist, I have examined the latest volume—volume 45—of the budget this year, which lists these working committees. There are 496 of them, they produce no agenda or minutes, and they sit in secret. This is the
200
reality of Europe, and the problem will not be solved by having some President at the top who is elected for a certain number of years.
Angus Robertson: In a similar vein to the comments of Labour Members about engagement with the democratically elected Parliament and Government of Scotland, which deals with the overwhelming majority of issues relating to shared sovereignty with the European Union that affect Scotland, I would like to point out that only 2 per cent.of working groups have been attended by Scottish Executive officials, although the vast majority of issues are devolved. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is too much, too little or about right?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have offered, as has the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, to visit Edinburgh and Cardiff to hear more about how we can repatriate some of this decision making back to the United Kingdom—and, possibly, under a form of devolution, back to the other parts of our kingdom. Indeed, we are going to Northern Ireland later this week, and I hope that we shall be able to give the hon. Gentleman a further and fuller answer after we have done that.
I am glad that the Minister for Europe has picked up on the point about the comitology process—a phrase that does not mean much to our constituents—involved in implementing decisions. He has said that he finds the process opaque and cumbersome, and that it needs review and reform. I have to say that it needs much more radical surgery than is apparently being contemplated by the Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that the Government have not yet produced any real proposals either for the convention or for the subsequent intergovernmental conference, to inform and stimulate a national debate. The Prime Minister relies far too heavily on his new-found friends Mr. Berlusconi, Mr. Aznar and Mr. Chirac, possibly to be joined by Mr. Stoiber. This emerging conservative alliance in Europe may be important, but it cannot be a substitute for a real attempt by the British Government to address the democratic deficit.
I am sure that at the end of this process, we shall be offered a simplification of the treaty provisions. We shall also be offered a constitutional text and, probably, some sort of pruning of the legal instruments, which number more than 20. That will not do the trick, however, because slimming down and simplifying an organisation does not, of itself, make that organisation democratic. Nor does it deal with the burden of the past. Here I must mention the acquis communautaire, which comprises the accumulated laws and regulations of the European Union that have built up over the past decades. A modest estimate is that it now runs to 85,000 pages.
The Opposition leader in Malta told me recently that his country had been sent 1.5 million pages of laws, regulations and explanatory texts, which it must introduce into its domestic legislation to qualify for membership. I have suggested that there should be a working party on the acquis communautaire to try to slim it down, but that is an heretical thought. It is seen as advocating a retreat for Europe, but frankly, we have to find a reverse gear as well as a forward one. Otherwise, we shall be not only

201
keeping on the statute book a volume of legislation that is incomprehensible to the public, but placing a most unfair burden on the applicant states.
Mr. John Baron: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas the Lord's prayer runs to something like 60 words, and the American declaration of independence to about 350, the EU directive on the import of caramel and caramelised products runs to something like 25,000?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right. I saw a letter in The Daily Telegraph recently which said that the regulations on the export of duck eggs run to more than 26,000 words.
What are we doing to these small countries? Let us take Estonia as an example. It is now free of Soviet domination, and negotiating to join the European Union. We are imposing on it a common agricultural policy. At the moment it has a free market in agriculture, but while we are trying to reform the CAP at home, we are making Estonia comply with an agricultural policy that we are imposing on it as part of the accession negotiations. More than that, Estonia is having to raise its external tariff as part of those negotiations. Imagine what that will do to the poorer countries to the east of Estonia, such as Belarus and Ukraine, all of which will now have to surmount a higher hurdle to continue to export their produce to Estonia, if and when Estonia becomes a member. Estonia also has to take on the full burden of the acquis communautaire.
Many of those countries in eastern Europe have weak administrative and legal systems, and I doubt whether, in practice, they will be able to comply with this volume of obligation. This has, of course, triggered a reaction. Reference has been made in this debate to Poland, which is already suffering as a result of European Union export subsidies. That has done enormous damage to Polish agriculture, but Poland is now being told that it will be a second-class member of the European Union, and will not even qualify for the agricultural support enjoyed in western Europe. It would not, therefore, surprise me if Poland eventually decided, for that reason and others, not to join. That would be a tragedy, because we must reunite Europe.
The essential mistake is to suppose that reunification of Europe requires a single organisation with an enormous volume of regulations and laws. It would be far better to reform the European Union into a Europe of democracies, and to welcome all the applicant countries into a looser common European structure, without their having to surmount all those enormous obstacles to qualify for membership.
I have asked for a working group on the economic future of Europe, too, because all our political and social dreams for our continent depend on a successful economy. However, we are losing ground in the world economy. We are over-regulated and our competitiveness in those wider markets is under attack, so I have suggested to the convention that we take evidence from outside the European Union. The EU is seen by many, particularly those in developing countries, as a rich man's club. It has higher peak tariffs than the United States or Japan, and
202
launches more anti-dumping measures against developing countries than any other trade block. Our claim to be the friend of the world's poor and disadvantaged therefore rings fairly hollow.
I am afraid that the very strong integrationist momentum in the convention means that the supposed solution to any of these problems is always more Europe. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is in his place, repeated the bold claim that the fundamental charter of rights will remain a political document, and will not become a legally binding one. However, that proposition is under attack in the convention; it is almost certain that the charter will be incorporated as legally binding. If, having left office, the hon. Gentleman is still so confident of that claim, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government intend to hold out in all cases against incorporation of the charter.
Mr. Vaz: I have every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will use his position in the convention to ensure that the charter remains something that is not legally binding.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall be the last man standing in that particular contest—but I need allies, particularly the Minister, from among the other delegation members.
Angus Robertson: On the question of allies, I am keen to learn a little more about the convention's workings, and about which colleagues the right hon. Gentleman is working closely with. For example, is he in alliance with Jens Peter Bende, who holds regular meetings with the convention? Which political parties from other countries attend those meetings? Do they include the party of Slovakia's Mr. Meciar, or that of Austria's Mr. Haider?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am a member of several different groups and alliances, some temporary and others shifting. Obviously, I am a member of the national parliamentary meeting, and I regard myself as having a particular duty to protect and advance the interests of this House. I am also a member of the United Kingdom delegation, which holds meetings, and of the European People's party. I do attend meetings organised by Jens Peter Bende, who heads an informal forum, as he describes it, consisting of a rainbow alliance between left and right—an alliance that is to its advantage. I do not know whether a formal membership list exists, but I can confirm that the Austrian Freedom party does not attend those meetings. The great advantage of the forum is that, like me, it puts democracy first. To do otherwise would be to build on insecure foundations.
It is no good advancing the proposition that Europe should do more, get bigger, spend more and have more missions and objectives, unless we secure at its foundations democratic consent from the people whom we represent. At the moment, that consent is lacking. I believe that electorates are trying to send us a message. The sad fact is that people do not vote at all, or they vote unexpectedly, and often for rather nasty people.
If people feel that they are not being offered genuine choices in elections, they express that feeling—as they did in the first round of the French parliamentary elections—by voting for extremist parties. Turnout in European

203
Parliament elections has fallen. Despite the fact that the European Parliament has been granted more powers in the last two treaty changes, turnout in this country was less than a quarter, and less than 50 per cent. throughout the European Union. Although the European Parliament has more to do and takes more decisions, fewer and fewer people feel properly represented by it.
Through referendums, people deliver snubs to the European elite. Switzerland voted no to joining the European Union, Denmark voted no to the euro, and Ireland voted no to the Nice treaty. That is not a very good record for the integrationists, but it seems not to have slowed down or altered their ambition. I again appeal to the Government, and the Minister in particular, not to continue to try to persuade the Irish to change their minds. It creates great cynicism in Europe when an electorate vote no only for the European Union to come back for another opinion.
The impression is gaining ground in Ireland that the EU will continue to shake the Irish electorate until it gets the right answer. Such action is completely unnecessary. The Nice treaty is not necessarily about enlargement. The provisions necessary for adjusting the institutional balance, and the voting in the Parliament and the Council, could be removed from the treaty and put into the accession treaties. That is what happened last time—and I know because I was there: I was the Minister who negotiated the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.
If those provisions were removed from the Nice treaty, the rest of it could be quietly forgotten, or swept up in the deliberations of the convention and the 2004 intergovernmental conference. A perfectly good solution exists, therefore, but instead the European Union seems obsessed with bullying the Irish electorate until they change their minds. That should act as a warning to us in any referendum on the euro. If we make the mistake of saying yes to the euro, the matter will indeed be all over; but if we say no, will that be the final decision? We need to know the answer from the Government before we proceed much further.
I am extremely worried about the lack of democracy in Europe. It is expressed in several ways, and electorates are trying to send us a message. However, I do not want to end on a negative or unduly pessimistic note. A solution does exist: we simply need to apply a little political science. Where do people feel democratically represented? At the level of their nation state, surely. It is at state level that public opinion, a single electorate and a demos exist. It is at state level that people elect, reject, dismiss, make changes and choices, and see the results of their decisions. We have a working democracy, which is replicated throughout the EU at member state level. However, such factors are absent in the European Union. There is no European Union demos, and it cannot be created artificially by waving an EU flag, or passing EU laws. It may evolve over decades—perhaps even centuries—but it does not exist at the minute.
Of course, the European Union, and in particular the Commission, are trying to develop a European people and a European mode of thought on an accelerated time scale. Today, the Bruges group has published an interesting document on the taxpayers' money that is spent on funding the European movement, policy centres, endowing university chairs, training journalists, and providing schools and schoolchildren with information on the EU that has a strong integrationist slant. We are
204
paying for that. According to the document, the education material, at least, breaches the Education Act 1996, which tries to prevent the circulation of such partisan material.
Such efforts will fail. I object to them because they are wrong, they are an abuse and they are corrupt—but they will not create the conditions for a supranational democracy in Europe, either. The only solution is to return powers to member states so that issues can be argued and decided at the level of democracy in which most people engage. For issues that must be decided internationally or on a Europe-wide basis—such as cross-border and trade issues—the procedure must be spelled out clearly in a treaty text and must provide for the full involvement of the parliaments of member states. That is the prime task of the convention. If we fail, the EU will fail. If we succeed, we may have a second chance.
6.51 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: I note that this is not one of our best attended debates—and not just because I have risen to speak. This subject has not commanded the interest of the vast majority of our colleagues because it has not commanded the interest of the vast majority of our constituents. In such circumstances, it is clear that little enthusiasm is felt for a decision to abandon control over our economic affairs or to lose our currency without compensating gains. If the Government have a referendum without having built enthusiastic support, they will lose. In that referendum, many people will take the opportunity to kick the Government. As a friend of the Government, albeit a critical one on occasions when they deserve it, I hope that they will recognise that a referendum cannot be won before the next general election and should not be held. They should make an announcement accordingly.
Trust in politics has been damaged over the past few weeks and days by recent events and the spin and counter-spin. Because of the excesses of spin and the reduction of trust in politics and politicians, we are now less likely to have a referendum. How ironic it is that a key part of the new Labour project has been derailed by the excesses of new Labour practices. Various phrases about reaping and sowing spring to mind.
Three issues divide the House and the British electorate. The first is whether people are for or against the Labour Government, the second is whether they favour British membership of the EU and the third is whether they favour Britain joining the euro in the short term. Only a few hon. Members have been prepared to raise their heads above the parapet and make clear their views on those issues. It is also clear that Labour Against The Euro is the only group that is in line with the majority of the British population on those three issues, being generally supportive of the Government, generally supportive of membership of the EU and generally opposed to joining the euro in present circumstances.
I hope that my colleagues will see the error of their ways and recognise that a referendum would be inappropriate at present. As for those on the Opposition Benches who do not presently support the Government, we have some vacancies remaining on our Benches. For

205
some, we are full up, but if Opposition Members care to apply to me personally I will give them my view on whether we will accept them.
Mr. Vaz rose—
Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend can stay. I am even prepared to let him intervene.
Mr. Vaz: I was not applying for membership of my hon. Friend's club. The Government's position is not that we should have a referendum now but that we should have an assessment of the five economic tests at an appropriate time and then have a referendum.
Mr. Davidson: Some people believe that, and I shall say more later.
One of the more attractive elements of new Labour's appeal at the general election and before—to me and to others—was its claim to be leaving dogma behind in favour of what worked. I welcomed that as a change from our enthusiasm for privatisation and the involvement of the private sector in public services. However, we now see an ideologically driven commitment from many in new Labour to the EU and the euro, irrespective of the reality of the position.
Many hon. Members, and those who have left Parliament, have been ideologically committed to the EU irrespective of the objective realities. However, that position was not ignoble for those who grew up and had their formative experiences in the period immediately before and during the second world war. To be in favour of a united Europe that would banish war in those circumstances is a respectable and honourable position. However, we sometimes fail to recognise that the war started more than 60 years ago. Those of my colleagues who are still trapped in that mindset should reflect that the world has moved on.
I regret that some people whom I respect have failed to move on and recognise that the world is now, paradoxically, a bigger and a smaller place. We should have links that go wider than only with our neighbouring countries in Europe. Those of us who take the same view on the euro have been described scathingly as little Englanders. I am prepared to accept that I am vertically challenged, but I find the accusation of being an Englander unfortunate. Indeed, I welcome applications for founding membership of the Scotland-Brazil friendship society for the next few days.
We should not reject little Englandism in favour of little Europeanism. I have been very involved with the Japanese Parliament and found great similarities between our two countries, including our relationships with the United States and with our immediate neighbours. We need to try to build positive links to improve many areas of the world. To look inwards only towards Europe is a mistake. We have had insufficient discussion about the impact of the EU on the third world and I am glad that some hon. Members have mentioned it today. The EU, as presently driven, is too inward looking.
We should have much less dogma in our discussions in Europe, and I turn now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
206
Paradoxically, I support the Government's position more than they do. I believe that the concept of economic tests is correct and not just a fig leaf. We should consider joining the euro if it is clearly and demonstrably in our economic interest, because not to do so would be to do a disservice to our people. I also believe that the converse is true. I believe that joining simply because of dogma. irrespective of the economics, would be absurd and dishonest and would do our people a disservice.
I feel increasingly that the arguments advanced in favour of the referendum and the tests were no more than stalling mechanisms to get us through a difficult period electorally. It seems to me that there is a sixth test—that the Government intend to hold a referendum whenever they think that they can win it. That does not strike me as the most honourable stance. I would welcome a clear and unequivocal statement from the Government that they will maintain their previously stated position—that the economic tests must themselves be met clearly and unequivocally. Let us have no ifs and buts, and no "on the one hand and on the other hand." I am sure that if the Government adhered to that standard of proof there would be no referendum before the next general election.
It is interesting to note that those who are keen to join irrespective of the economics argued for a long time that if only the Prime Minister gave a lead, the polls would resolve themselves and there would be a swing in their direction. They said that there would be such a large majority in favour of joining that the Government could do it. I do not think anyone could reasonably suggest that the Prime Minister has not come off the fence: it is clear that he favours joining the euro.
There was some discussion earlier about whether the launch of the euro had been a success. It is worth looking at how the polls have moved since the turn of the year. MORI reckons that there has been a 6 per cent. increase in the no vote since then. ICM refers to an increase of 8 per cent., NOP to one of 11 per cent. and GFK to one of 14 per cent. That is despite the fact that the Prime Minister has given as much of a lead as I think he reasonably could have in the circumstances.
I was, in a way, heartened by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), ever the optimist in these matters. He said that the introduction of the euro had not been a disaster, suggesting that in a sense that in itself was enough for a celebration. According to today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, however, Belgian euros are being refused in France and French euros are being refused in Spain. That is hardly a sign of a raging success.
None of that, of course, touches on the undoubted price inflation that we have seen. My right hon. Friend, regrettably, omitted to mention that the latest opinion polls demonstrate—as I understand it—that more than 55 per cent. of Germans want to abolish the euro and return to the deutschmark. If that is success, by all means let us have more of it, so that we can knock this project on the head in the short term.
It is sad that such an enthusiastic supporter of the euro should be encouraged by temporary fluctuations in exchange rates. Three rollercoasters—the euro, the dollar and the pound—are moving at different speeds and on different levels. The suggestion that the fact that they have moved nearer to each other recently, as they occasionally have previously, indicates that everything is coming right

207
strikes me as an attempt to clutch at straws and to draw comfort from instability. In the circumstances, that hardly seems appropriate.
I recall when the Tories took us into the exchange rate mechanism, a move supported by the then Labour Opposition and enthusiastically endorsed by the Liberals. I think we all remember what a raging success that was. It demonstrates that if all the high heid yins are agreed on something, there must invariably be cause for concern. When the elites agree, the answer almost invariably lies somewhere else.
I mentioned the sixth test, whose existence seems increasingly clear to me as time goes on. Let me now ask whether it is necessary for us to be in the euro to have influence in Europe. Much has been made of how we can achieve such influence by magical means. I was pleased to note from the website of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool that he acknowledged the position: there we find the statement
"But joining the euro is an essential condition of Britain leading in Europe and it is accepted by the government that the question is 'when' not 'if."
I must confess that in the event of a clash between the my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, I tend to side with the Prime Minister. In an interview with La Repubblica, which I will not quote in the original Italian—I would if I could—the Prime Minister said specifically that Britain did not need to be in the euro to be a leader in Europe. As I said earlier, we should make it clear that we will not allow a referendum on the euro before the next general election. Once that issue is out of the way, we shall be in a much better and clearer position from which to move forward—to negotiate, and to discuss how we want to play a part in Europe. As long as the issue is hanging there—as long as the "Will they, won't they?" question remains—all sorts of other issues are clouded.
I do not doubt that it is in our interests to remain engaged in Europe, and in debates on Europe. It is one of the Government's great successes that we have engaged in Europe much more positively than the last Government did. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and his predecessors and successors engaged on a number of issues. Although—as my hon. Friend will be glad to learn—I did not always agree with their conclusions, theirs was a positive rather than a negative frame of mind, and I think that great strides have been made.
We should, however, consider what being good Europeans really means. In a number of contexts, the impression is given that the only way we can be good Europeans is to make concessions. Gibraltar was discussed earlier today. In that context, it is being suggested that we can be good Europeans only by selling people out or conceding ground. We ought to be much more robust in dealing with our European colleagues. Can anyone imagine for a moment that the French, or the Spanish themselves, would behave as we have in equivalent circumstances? We have consistently sought to make concessions and to find a middle way—and trying to find a middle way always encourages the other side to come up with something even more unreasonable in order to leave us seeking triangulation.
If we were more robust, we would gain more respect than we have in the past. The record of the European Union on a number of important issues—issues that were
208
important to us—has not been all that great. I look at the Liberal Democrats, and I think of fishing. What have the European Union and the common fisheries policy done for the areas that many Liberal Democrats represent? Not a great deal. If I am not mistaken, not so long ago the Liberal Democrats wanted us to withdraw from the common fisheries policy.
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
Mr. Davidson: I will certainly check, but I am sure that Labour candidates in the south-west will be glad to learn that the Liberal Democrats are enthusiastic about the common fisheries policy.
Angus Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the occasion last year when the votes of Liberal Democrat members of the coalition on the Scottish Executive reversed a policy that would have introduced a cod compensation scheme. Such a scheme would have been welcomed in the fishing constituencies represented by the Scottish National party in Banff and Buchan, Moray and Angus.
Mr. Davidson: I do not believe in tribal politics, so I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which seemed to be that the Liberal Democrats are a bad lot. Not many fishermen or fisherwomen live in Glasgow, Pollok, so I do not have a direct interest in the matter. However, I can see that the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) is bursting to enter the debate, and I shall allow him to impale himself.
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman may have a false recollection of my party's position on the CAP, but I cannot allow him to characterise us as not wanting substantial reform. His father lives in my landlocked constituency, so he will accept that it is not an issue in which I have taken close personal interest over the years.
Mr. Davidson: I am sorry. I mistook the hon. Gentleman for a spokesman. I presumed that he would know about these matters. My father speaks highly of the hon. Gentleman, in that he says that he is better than his predecessor.
Many of the same criticisms apply to the CAP. It has been denounced in this Chamber since I arrived, 10 years ago. The changes have been infinitesimal: prices are still too high, subsidy goes to the wrong places, and the policy remains hostile to the interests of people in the third world and the developing world. Has there been reform? There has not been much. Will there be reform before the enlargement countries join? Someone said earlier that we must tackle the question of the CAP once we get enlargement, but that seems to be the wrong way round.
New members must be full members, not second-class members. A policy that will not be tenable if new countries are brought in ought to be changed before they join. We must get rid of a policy that means that we pay farmers to grow things that we do not need so that we can dump products in a way that ruins world markets, to the cost of the developing world and the third world.
I will believe that the EU can be reformed when the National Farmers Union complains bitterly about falling food prices—although the NFU always complains bitterly

209
that its members do not get enough money. I need clear evidence that food prices are falling and that we are achieving gains from European agriculture before I will believe that the situation is being improved.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend has made a strong point about why the CAP has not been reformed. The only arguments that the Americans have been able to advance for the way in which they have increased subsidies is that they still do not subsidise nearly as much as the Europeans do through the CAP. Does not a fair system of agriculture mean that we should get away from this obsession with the euro and look at how we can reform the CAP? In that way we might take the Americans along with us.
Mr. Davidson: That is a helpful contribution. Until we see evidence that the CAP has been reformed, many hon. Members will be cynical about the proposition that EU reform is just around the corner.
I turn now to the Irish referendum, which was mentioned earlier. I hope that the Government will say whether they go along with the idea that the Irish, having got the referendum result wrong, must go through the process again. Do they consider that the principle—that when a country implements its right to hold a referendum but reaches a decision that the centre considers to be wrong it must keep on going until it gets the matter right—should be adhered to whenever there is a referendum in the EU?
Is it the Government's intention to intervene in the Irish referendum? Will British diplomats, civil servants, members of the machinery of Government, or British political leaders intervene in any way to influence the referendum result? I ask out of curiosity, but many people will want to hear the answer, as it has implications as to whether other EU countries are allowed to intervene in this country's euro referendum. Clearly, if we claim the right to intervene elsewhere, others will determine that they have the right to intervene here. It is important that we spell out the ground rules at an early stage.
Finally, I turn to the level of debate and discussion. It has been a cause of regret to me that much of the debate on the euro has been trivial and tribal. A number of Labour Members believe that we should not join the euro, and we have had a fair amount of vitriol directed at us by some parliamentary colleagues. That demeans politics in general.
On several occasions we have been accused of being dupes. A recent piece compared us with the 1930s pacifists who were "dupes of Hitler", and with
"liberal members of Communist front organisations who were dupes of Moscow."
I find that offensive, as do my constituents. Members of the Government may disagree with our position, but to reduce politics on important issues to name calling brings us all into disrepute.
Mr. Hopkins: Does not my hon. Friend consider that that is a simple case of people who have lost an argument stooping to abuse?
Mr. Davidson: It is a classic tactic for people who are losing a game to start playing the man or woman, not the ball. That is to be regretted, as it diminishes us all.
210
Rather than be described as a dupe of the Tories, I fully intend to give up some other commitments to demonstrate my independence of mind on other matters. I hope that that will prove constructive for the Government. I have never before knowingly co-operated with the Conservative party, but I am willing to do what is necessary to prove that I am not hand in glove with it.
Some colleagues seem to believe that the height of political sophistication and argument is to wave euro notes before us, as if they were pieces of garlic being waved before vampires. They seem to think that that will make us disappear. A better level of exchange would be appropriate.
I do not often open my wallet, but I want to show my party's Front Benchers that it contains euros, dollars and yen. That demonstrates my internationalism, but it does not really prove anything. I should prefer it if hon. Members supporting the Government's position did not feel that waving euro notes proved anything with respect to their argument. We need a higher level of debate and discussion.
I accept that the argument can be difficult. I listened to our two representatives on the convention, and some of the issues are so intricate that one finds oneself losing the will to live. However, the essence of many of the relevant matters is relatively simple and straightforward and can be explained in ways that most people can understand. We do not need to have 256 pages on caramelisation read out to us to appreciate that there are major issues at stake.
The Government should concentrate on the issues of principle, rather than the trivial, abusive or tribal. If that happens, we can conduct the debate in a way that restores respect for politics and politicians, rather than diminishing it.
7.19 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: This has been an excellent debate. The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was an old Labour tour de force against the euro, which I was pleased to hear. Then there was his revelation that he is not only a regular reader of The Daily Telegraph but believes what he reads in it and gets his inspiration from it.
We have had particularly interesting contributions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on the deliberations of the convention on the future of Europe. It is a matter for some regret that the House spends so little time discussing the important matters that are discussed and decided in the European Union by the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and other bodies. Reference has been made to the Scrutiny Committee, on which I served for nine months in the last Parliament. As I indicated in an intervention on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, it is a matter of regret that that Committee, which is our principal means of scrutinising European legislation, whether in the form of directives or draft directives, conducts its affairs in private. I believe that there should be open and transparent scrutiny of European legislation.
I served on the Committee with a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). We tried to persuade the Committee on several occasions that the budget of the European Union

211
should not be discussed in a Standing Committee but on the Floor of the House. It is a most important matter that is relevant to farmers in this country because agricultural spending is such an important component of the budget. The European Union's aid programme is a major item of expenditure in the Department for International Development. Alas, debate on these important areas is hidden away—something that I fear is symptomatic of what has been going on in the European Union ever since we joined.
On 1 January next year it will be 30 years since we joined the European Community, as it then was, and not long after we had a referendum relating to our membership. Since then, British support for our membership of the European Union has been tepid at best because so much of the development that has taken place has been conducted by the political elites not only in this country but right across Europe. We have failed to take the people with us; we have failed to involve our electorate in the developments that we are trying to promote in the British national interest. This secret agenda is often picked up on in the popular press and sometimes appears in the form of misguided headlines in our newspapers.
The fact that this is not only a British problem but exists right across the continent has been exemplified in recent years by the difficulties of some of our partners who have tried to get referendums through on what they thought were perfectly straightforward matters only to find that the electorate revolted because they were not involved in the process or engaged in the debate. I fear that we run the risk of encountering the same problem in this country in the run-up to a possible referendum on our membership of the single currency.
We have failed to take the people with us. Politicians throughout Europe have become detached from the real world. For example, we have talked today about structures, systems, committees and working groups. Yet ordinary people do not see Europe in that context. My own children, for instance, simply see it as a place they go to and come back from; they have no great hang-ups about it and feel part of it. In the next few years, we will require the consent of the British people, whether that consent is expressed in a referendum or simply implied in terms of the votes that we take in the House, on a number of major developments that will affect our future and that of the whole of Europe.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about enlargement. If we accept all the applicants, it will mean bringing 13 new members into this family of nations. The reform of the common agricultural policy has also been mentioned. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok about how often we have talked about that. I guess that it has been in every major political party's election manifesto since the day we joined the European Community. However, every reform process ends up costing the taxpayers of Europe yet more money, becomes more complex and gets into more areas of agriculture. Even the most recent reform, which was supposed to be the prelude to enlargement of the EU, ended up costing more than was the case under the previous regime.
We have to reform the CAP before we can accept those 13 applicants as full members of the Union. If not, the costs for Europe's taxpayers will be astronomical. To accept those 13 member states and enjoy the current
212
subsidy regime under the CAP would require so much from the taxpayers in the rest of Europe—it will not come from the taxpayers of the new, less prosperous nations—that there could be a revolt.
Many EU members have enjoyed a very generous structural funds regime, the most obvious examples being Spain and Ireland. Structural funds are also available in this country, France and a number of other countries in the existing European Union. However, those funds will shift, quite dramatically, to the new members of the European Union, which will have more justification for having them than those in the west.
We have lots of bright ideas about a common foreign and security policy, which goes back to the Maastricht treaty. However, that concept is at present totally inadequate. I have no problem with the common foreign and security policy as long as our fellow member states are prepared to make a commitment to it. I believe that the United States sees Europe having a greater presence in NATO—whether separate from the US but still part of the NATO structure, or additional to NATO. So far, however, there has been no new commitment from some of our EU partners to making available troops and materiel to make that structure work.
There could be some operational problems with the common foreign and security policy unless it is applied only to a small operation that could be handled by a national command and control structure. Any larger operation. especially one involving the 60,000 troops anticipated for the rapid reaction force, would still require the full commitment of the NATO command and control structure and SHAPE—Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—at Mons.
We shall also have to face the challenges posed by free trade and by the World Trade Organisation. If Europe is to look outwards, it should be creating a North Atlantic free trade area which brings together the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union. We must break down the existing trade barriers that have worsened on the other side of the Atlantic. Beyond that lie the challenges of the developing world and, within the United Kingdom, the possible referendum on the single currency.
I am delighted that we have heard contributions from two of our members of the convention on the future of Europe and I look forward to hearing from the third as part of the winding-up. For the first time since we moved to a directly elected European Parliament in 1979, Members of national Parliaments are formally part of the EU process. I welcome that development; we are beginning to get some joined-up government in the EU.
We must move on from that, however. Not only in the UK but throughout Europe, national Parliaments and national political debates have become detached from the reality of what takes place in our name at the European level. Also detached from those debates is the reality that every year millions of Britons travel in Europe on holiday and on business. They work and live on the continent, but we conduct our debates as though those people did not travel. Our debates are often conducted in the language of 1942 rather than that of 2002. We must try to set up a more adult and grown-up debate about the future of our continent.
I mentioned the goal of enlargement and the 13 new member states, but we must also consider the consequences of that enlargement. There will be

213
consequences for the reform of the common agricultural policy, which will also be affected—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out—by the new US farm Bill. That will result in a tit-for-tat operation by upping the ante on subsidies. We must come to terms with that if we are to make any sense of the last WTO declaration at Doha, which refers to getting rid of our subsidy-dependent culture in the industrialised world, not only in Europe but in north America and Japan.
We must stop contemplating our navel and start to look outwards. A Europe that looks outwards across the Atlantic to north America and to the wider world to genuine free trade and recognises that globalisation can be harnessed for the benefit of the whole world is a Europe that will survive.
There is, however, an issue on which Europe must start looking inwards—the whole question of accountability. I was a little disappointed by the Foreign Secretary's response to my intervention when he told us that the Council of Ministers was to be televised but that we would not actually see any of the discussions, as that might be slightly embarrassing, but only the votes. That will probably be a waste of television time, as the voting process is not terribly interesting. A piece of paper would tell us how our Ministers had voted. What we really want to know is what our Ministers are saying in the Council. Are they representing our national interest in the Council of Ministers? What is the French Minister saying? What is the German Minister saying? Why are we agreeing or disagreeing with them? Why have we arrived at the compromise that the Council—as it often does—votes for unanimously? We deserve to see the Council in action as a legislative body, rather than being treated to the sight of 15 people putting their hands up, which would make for rather boring television and would receive even less coverage than our debates in this place.
I am also concerned about the scrutiny process in our national Parliaments. As a first step we must crank up that process in this place. So much comes from Brussels. At meetings of the Scrutiny Committee, umpteen documents are listed by number. The Chairman of the Committee reads through the list—as the Committee meets in private, I hope that I am allowed to say this—and if one is really smart, one can propose that the Committee discuss a particular point. If one feels that it is especially important, one might at least get the Committee to consider referring it to one of the European Standing Committees.
The meetings of those Standing Committees are rarely covered in the press. I sit on European Standing Committee B which yesterday held a most important debate on asylum seekers and their common treatment throughout the European Union. There have been acres of newspaper coverage of that subject but I do not recall seeing any reference in this morning's press to the only debate in this place on the scrutiny of proposals that will be brought into legislative effect throughout the EU. I am also somewhat sceptical—as was the Scrutiny Committee brief—about the Government's optimism as to the effect of the proposals.
We must involve our national Parliaments much more closely in what goes on in the European Union. Our electorates look to us when they criticise what comes from Brussels. Those directives that Christopher Booker and
214
other journalists write about have been approved by Ministers who sit on the Treasury Bench. Those Ministers vote on them. Ministers who sit on the Treasury Bench approve those so-called Brussels directives—those things that Brussels sends us, which we have to implement and which are supposedly imposed on us. They are not imposed on us; we have a agreed to them, and Ministers of the Crown should be accountable for those decisions. We have to make that point over and over again. That is why national Parliaments should be much more at the heart of the scrutiny process than they are today.
I have a great deal of respect for many good friends who sit in the European Parliament, who spend hours discussing the detail of such documents, but our electorates look to us, and not to our friends in the European Parliament, for such scrutiny. That is why we must have a much more transparent debate on what occurs in the European Union.
I want to refer briefly to the euro. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of whether we should join the European single currency, but I am somewhat saddened that one of our newspaper proprietors has seen fit to instruct his editors—or so it is reported in the Financial Times—to give only one side of the argument in their papers. If the British people are to be asked to take that decision—as I believe they should be asked in a referendum—the facts need to be put before them and both sides of the argument should be expressed to them dispassionately.
The decision should not become some sort of xenophobic or tribal decision about whether or not people are British or whether joining represents the end of sovereignty and democracy as we know it. We should actually look at the facts. That involves treating the British people as though they are adults, and considering not only the infamous economic tests but the political questions that my constituents certainly want asked about whether the decision is in Britain's national political interest.
If the Government and those who believe that we should join the European single currency can convince the British people that this is not about the creation of a European superstate—that they believe that Europe is a union of sovereign nation states and that that sovereignty will ultimately rest with the nations states—the British people will be far more amenable to considering the economic tests that the Chancellor has laid down. So the challenge for the Government and those who believe that Britain's future lies with Europe and membership of the single currency is that they have to convince the people that Britain is strengthened, not weakened, by an enhanced role in the EU.
7.43 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: These debates are important because they provide the House with an opportunity not just to discuss the forthcoming European Council meeting in Seville, but to express our views on a wide range of issues.
I am very disappointed that, uncharacteristically in such debates, we have not been graced by the presence of the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who always make interesting contributions. Of course they have now been promoted to the Front Bench. That is perhaps one reason why we have not heard from them this evening,

215
but this has been a good debate because it has allowed us for the first time not just to discuss what will happen at the European Council meeting, but to assess what has been going on in the EU during the past six months.
I was fascinated by the accounts of the convention given by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). The convention has been fashioned in a unique way. Members of national Parliaments will be allowed the opportunity not only to take part in a very important decision-making process, but to return to the House to give us the opportunity to question them and to hear what they have to say. That is extremely necessary.
Frankly, someone who met the right hon. Member for Wells and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston separately would not think that they had much in common, but I am very pleased that they are working together, perhaps from different perspectives. They will go to Edinburgh, Cardiff and, this week. Belfast to discuss with the law makers in different parts of the United Kingdom how we can improve the way in which the EU operates.
My plea to the Minister for Europe is to continue the work that he and the Foreign Secretary have been doing on the reform agenda. They have both worked extremely hard to ensure that, although the EU's agenda is necessarily busy, the reform agenda remains very much a British initiative. We need to recognise the work that Neil Kinnock, one of the two European Commissioners from Britain, is doing on reforming the operation of the Commission's personnel, but we should applaud and commend what Britain is doing—what the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe are doing—in constantly pushing forward the reform agenda.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) says that he wants television cameras to be present because he wants to check on what Ministers are doing and whether they are defending Britain's interests. Well, I can assure him that this Government, like the previous Government, defend Britain's interests to the hilt. The right hon. Member for Wells was a Minister in the last Conservative Government. He did not attend those meetings to allow the French, the Germans or anyone else to try to pursue their agenda without offering any resistance. Ministers are able to attend and fight Britain's corner, and they do so very effectively because they have tremendous support from our civil servants.
I pay tribute to Sir Nigel Sheinwald and his team in Brussels for the way in which they help British Ministers to press what we believe to be in the best interests of Britain and, indeed, the EU.
The hon. Member for North Dorset should have no fears about what happens. He and other hon. Members should not criticise the work that is being done throughout the country in trying to reconnect the British people to the EU. Clearly, that work has to be done. There was criticism that money was spent on publishing pamphlets and other activities because it was felt that that was not necessary, but I believe that it was vital. It is the best way to communicate with our people about the effectiveness of
216
what we can achieve in the EU. If we say nothing and leave such things to a very Eurosceptic media, we will simply not get our message across.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No one objects to information, but as the pamphlet clearly shows, the spending is biased in favour of those giving an integrationist, pro-European slant, and it is done with taxpayers' money. That is contrary to any guidelines that apply to the British Government over their expenditure. Why should we tolerate that from the EU; it is all taxpayers' money?
Mr. Vaz: I will study the pamphlet. I have not received a copy myself—perhaps those involved know that I am convinced of the argument, so they have not sent me one—but I will study it. However, I am trying to make the point that it is important that Ministers and others should go out to the country to talk to people about the benefits of being in the EU, and we should continue that process. If we were to fail to do that, we would simply not give the British people value for money. I hope that people will be told about those benefits.
I also want to ensure that the reform agenda is implemented now. We simply do not have to wait for treaty changes to do many of the things that we would like. In my intervention on the Foreign Secretary, I referred to the letter that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schröder wrote to José Mariá Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister. That letter contained 20 or so principles and suggestions to improve the way in which the EU manages its business, from how the presidency operates right down to how the agendas are formed. Is it necessary for Heads of Government—busy people—to sit around the European summit table and to have to read out their positions in turn? That may be possible now, but when the new applicants enter in 2004, it will simply not be possible to finish meetings; they will go on for ever.
That was one of the problems at Nice—a crucial conference, designed to ensure that we prepared the EU for enlargement, where we were negotiating about how many votes each country would receive in the Council of Ministers. It went on for days and, quite rightly, not just our Prime Minister, but leaders of other European countries were very concerned about the length of time that it took.
We must reform the agenda. We must make sure that the decisions are communicated effectively to people. The right hon. Member for Wells picked up something that looked like a very large telephone directory and referred to it as volume 45. If it is volume 45, I do not know what volumes 1 to 45 would look like, or whether there are more than 45 volumes. Clearly, it is necessary, in the interests of the environment at least, to cut down on the amount of paper that flows from Brussels. We can only do that if we reform the way in which the Commission operates, and if we try to make sure that people are alerted at a very early stage to what is happening in terms of the decision-making process. We can achieve that without the need for treaties.
The letter of 25 February 2002 went to the Spanish Prime Minister, as Spain has the presidency until after the Seville European summit. Javier Solana, the Secretary General, then produced his own paper preparing the Council for enlargement. That was presented at Barcelona, and several sensible proposals were put

217
forward that, again, did not require a treaty change. I hope that the Minister for Europe will make sure that we press on with the reform agenda. We must find out what happened to the Prime Minister's letter, how many of the points sensibly raised by the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schröder have been dealt with, how many of those points remain, and how we can make sure that we focus the minds of the European Commission and Mr. Solana, who works with us on these issues, to ensure that these other points are completed. Those are my comments on reform.
The debate began with a discussion of immigration and asylum policy. Every time I come into the Chamber, there seems to be a debate on immigration and asylum. For two days last week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was talking about immigration and asylum. Today, obviously, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary began by talking about immigration and asylum, and goodness knows when it will be raised next—perhaps in a debate on economic policy. We need to make the point clearly that it is right that we should discuss these issues. We should also use the opportunity of Seville, however, to make sure that the other European countries put their good words into action. That means ensuring that common agreed policies are implemented and that problems are tackled at source.
I am not sure that I am entirely convinced that the way to deal with the issue is to sanction or penalise third-world countries into behaving differently. I do not think that that can be done. I understand why the Government have made the suggestion, and it merits discussion and attention, but I am not surprised that countries such as Sweden and others have said that it is not practical, as I do not think that it is. We need to consider an alternative method.
I shall give the House two examples of people who have come to my surgery in the last few weeks. One was a Dutch Somalian woman who had the right of residence in Holland and who has decided to come to live in Leicester in the United Kingdom. I am very happy that she has chosen to come to Leicester, which is a multicultural city. We welcome people from all parts of the world if they wish to be part of the Leicester experience. I asked her, not as an inquisition but for information, why she chose to come to live in Leicester. To use Daily Mail speak, I asked her whether she came because the benefits were higher in Leicester, or whether it was because we provided council housing more quickly—[Interruption.] It is kind of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to suggest that she chose Leicester because of me, but I do not think that that was the reason. I asked her whether she was better off here. She said that she was not. She said that she received higher benefits in Holland and was provided with accommodation immediately there. She wanted to come to Britain, England and Leicester in particular because she felt safer in Leicester than in Holland. There are mosques for her to attend there and a fairly large Somalian community, as there is in Birmingham.
Last week, a woman who had come from Ethiopia via Stockholm with her three children visited my surgery to complain about the accommodation that she had been given. She had been given damp accommodation, and I wrote to the council on her behalf. I asked her, "Why did you choose to come from Stockholm to here? Was it
218
because the housing was not particularly good?" She said that she had a wonderful flat overlooking the wonderful city of Stockholm but she preferred to come to the wonderful city of Leicester. I asked her again why she came to Leicester. She said that she felt safer in Leicester than in Sweden and that her family were settled here.
In our discussions and debates with our European allies, we must remind them of the need to value ethic minority communities, which have made such an important contribution to the life of our nation. The message coming from people who have rights of residence—they are not asylum seekers or illegally here but people who choose to come here with rights of residence from EU countries—is that they choose to come to Britain because they feel that they are valued and treated better here. We must tell our allies that they should do more to ensure that their ethnic minority communities feel as valued and as safe as they do when they come here.
My third point is in relation to the justice and home affairs agenda. Tampere was extremely important. Like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I was present at the Tampere summit, and it was good to see co-operation between countries on this important area. I want us to do more, however, on the issue of child abduction in the European Union. I have written to the Prime Minister about this, and I hope that the Minister for Europe will remind him that a letter was sent last week concerning the case of Catherine Meyer, a British citizen whose two sons were abducted by her German husband, and who has been treated appallingly by the German courts. I am very pleased that the issue has all-party support—I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stone on many European issues, but we agree on this. It is vital that we consider the case in the context of the appalling behaviour of the German courts. When an EU nation is a close ally of the United Kingdom, we should make sure that its courts dispense justice and that they do not merely act in the national interest. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will raise the case with Chancellor Schröder in the same way as it was raised by President Clinton and by President Chirac. I hope that we will achieve results in that regard.
I have two final points. One is on the issue of enlargement, which has been mentioned by all Members who have contributed. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has returned to the Chamber from his other meetings in the House is rewriting history. He tells us that the Conservative party is in favour of enlargement. I know that it is not his fault—he did not fashion the policy as he was not the shadow Foreign Secretary at the time; it was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who was the co-signatory to the Maastricht treaty. He came to the Chamber on many occasions and said that he and his party would oppose Nice, and that the effect of opposing Nice would be that the enlargement process would be blocked. Of course, in practice, that would have been exactly the consequence of what he proposed to do. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Devizes has been converted and that he has changed the policy of the Conservative party.
We must have enlargement. We must welcome applicant countries into the European Union. Not only will that create the largest single market anywhere in the world, with 500 million consumers, and benefit our economy by about £1.75 billion a year, but it is important,

219
politically and historically, that we unite Europe. If we look at the road map for enlargement, the 30 chapters have been opened in respect of all 12 countries with candidate status except Turkey. I have been surprised by the progress made under the Swedish and Spanish presidencies to the extent that the lead country, Cyprus, has closed 28 chapters, and even the applicant country that is right down the list, Malta, has closed 22. I was astonished that Bulgaria, which we thought would not join in the near future, had already closed 20 chapters, and by Commissioner Verheugen's statement in Brussels that 80 per cent. of the chapters would be closed by the end of June. That is astonishing progress and a credit to Commissioner Verheugen and the United Kingdom, as we have been the champion of enlargement. That process was begun by a speech in Warsaw by the Prime Minister and pursued by the Leader of the House—when he was Foreign Secretary—and by the current Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe.
Enlargement is crucial for the success of the European experience, so will my right hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether he is convinced that all 10 applicant countries, other than Bulgaria and Romania, will join the EU by 2004? I know that Ministers are reluctant to put figures on that but, in the past, we talked about waves of entry. Will we have just one big bang in 2004 before the European elections?
The shadow Foreign Secretary was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government and he spoke about agricultural reform. For 18 years the Conservative party in government did nothing about reforming the common agricultural policy. It is all very well to come to the House now to say that he wants reforms, but we have been arguing for them. [Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary knows how many vested interests are involved in the CAP, and even five years is not long enough to overcome the vested interests, especially those of the French, in the CAP.
We want to ensure that the CAP is reformed, and we cannot use reform of the CAP as a means of stopping the enlargement process. Reform must wait until after enlargement, but the Government are committed to it and we will do it, unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary and his colleagues who say that they want reform but will not bring it about.
My final point is about the euro. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) will speak about this issue, but I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has gone. He made a very thoughtful speech. Government policy has remained the same for the past five years; it has not changed. There is no question of a referendum now. The Government have made it clear over five years that the economic tests will be assessed. Only after they are assessed and only when it is in the national interest will the Cabinet, Parliament and then the British people decide on whether we join the euro. It will be not this House or one person to decide as happened under the Conservative Administration—and as expressed in the Conservatives' election manifesto—when the Conservative party's former leader and the shadow Cabinet were left to decide. The people will decide, and that remains the right course of action.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister well in Seville. I know that he, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will bat very hard for Britain as they always do.
220
I know that the policy of positive engagement that started five years ago will continue in Seville and that we will get an agenda that suits Britain and Europe.
8.2 pm
Mr. Mark Simmonds: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). Like all other Members who have spoken in the debate, he urged reform, particularly of the lack of democratic accountability in the European Union. He also urged the essential reform of the CAP. Much of the debate has been about the minutiae of the detailed changes that are required. However, much more fundamental reform of the EU is required if it is to be responsive to the demands and the needs of the populations that it purports to represent.
The world and Europe have altered significantly since 11 September. The old enmities and animosities have been brushed aside in an optimistic surge and spirit of co-operation. The United States and Russia are working together to combat terrorism and to reduce their respective nuclear capabilities. Pakistan, Syria and Iran have played their part and have certainly not stood in the way of the eradication of al-Qaeda.
Although Britain rightly continues to fulfil its role in assisting the United States, I have grave doubts that the Prime Minister could and would have been so courageous had we had in place a fully operational and fully fledged common European defence and foreign policy. As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) eloquently pointed out, I suspect that we would still be discussing the issues at European level without any action having been taken. However, as a nation state, we quite rightly rallied, as we always do, behind our excellent armed forces.
The fundamental lesson that we must learn from the ghastly events in the United States is that nation states can and will co-operate when it is in their mutual interests to do so. Nation states will not always agree on every issue. It is therefore a prerequisite to co-operate where necessary or where mutual advantage exists and not to have forced co-operation between states when no mutuality of advantage exists.
It is clear that all the interests of one country are not shared with the same countries. This point is exemplified and exacerbated by the current European Union structures where, irrespective of national interest or disinterest, a single policy approach is considered applicable. This forced and often false co-operation both degrades and erodes the necessary flexibility that should be allowed to flourish. It is vitally important that the United Kingdom, with its strong historic transatlantic ties and its historic Commonwealth connections, be allowed to maintain flexibility of social, economic and diplomatic arrangements, especially at a time of ever increasing and accelerating globalisation, as evidenced by China's recent rejoining of the World Trade Organisation.
Flexibility must be the bedrock of any future European integration, particularly as the EU expands eastward. The retention of power in national Parliaments and the principle of subsidiarity must not be maintained just at existing levels, but must be enhanced. The mendacity of fudge and compromise leaves dissatisfied and disaffected countries, Parliaments, national and regional politicians and, most importantly, a disengaged electorate who

221
rightly believe that double dealing and duplicity are the order of the day. This democratic deficit is extraordinarily dangerous.
When the electorate feel left behind and ignored, and when the political elite move in one direction and the electorate wish to move in another, it is inevitable that, if only through despair, those who flaunt and propound abhorrent views and policies will attract support. We have recently seen that phenomenon in France, Holland and, thankfully to a lesser extent, in the United Kingdom. There is a direct correlation between the democratic deficit and support for extremists. There is also a direct correlation between this democratic deficit and the continuing downward spiral and low turnouts in the last general election in this country and in recent elections in Europe.
A simple issue requires addressing. Within the European Union, the bodies that have power and control are not in any way democratically accountable. I have a few suggestions as to how we could start to remedy that problem. First, the Commission should become an administrative body—a civil service—with no political authority. Secondly, the Council of Ministers, which has a semblance of democratic accountability, should be charged with greater political responsibility and initiation and enacting powers.
Thirdly and more crucially, as has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and others, this Parliament and other national Parliaments across Europe should have a greater and earlier role in scrutinising, amending and ratifying the legislation, directives and draft directives that emanate from the EU. That would avoid the necessity for unanimous votes within the EU and give real power back to democratically elected and accountable Parliaments, which would have to answer to their electorates for the decisions and changes that they make. It would also allow individual nation states to forge alliances and to enact legislation when it was in their national interest to do so, and to block legislation and directives that may be detrimental or irrelevant to one country without stopping others who might wish to have that legislation or those directives. The other countries would not have to use their veto at the European level.
Greater co-operation between us and our European neighbours should be forthcoming in other ways, which hon. Members have already mentioned. Asylum is at the forefront of concerns and I am pleased that it is high up the agenda for the forthcoming Seville summit. We do not co-operate enough to combat the crime that crosses geopolitical boundaries. We also clearly need to co-operate more on the environment. It is obvious that many parts of the EU suffer from industrial pollution and emissions that damage the atmosphere and other parts of the EU, as the problem crosses political boundaries.
I remain worried that in a fast-moving global economy, with capital not only disrespectful but ignoring political boundaries, the EU seems to be inward looking and introspective rather than outward looking and flexible. We should consider ways to enhance our populations, especially by increasing the choice offered to consumers through encouraging free trade. We should not encourage protectionism, which in agriculture has the additional unpleasant and undesirable side effect of extenuating
222
poverty in third world developing countries and perpetuating economic migration and asylum. It is not until we get to the root of the problem, which is resolving and amending the common agricultural policy, that we will start to have an impact on economic migration and asylum.
The arrival of global markets and electronic technology make political boundaries irrelevant in trade terms. The last set of structures required to deal with such a market is an overcentralised, over-regulated, protectionist, over-bureaucratic and undemocratic union of states. We should be promoting competition, not harmonisation, especially of fiscal and monetary policy, and we should be promoting diversity and flexibility, not fostering uniformity and unaccountability.
8.12 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: There have been many interesting speeches and I am pleased to participate in the debate. Before I focus on my main concern, which is economic, I want to comment on scrutiny. For five years I have been a member of European Standing Committee B and I make the most of it. A Minister is present for two and a half hours. Often not many hon. Members speak, and it is possible to get to grips with the subject. It is probably inadequate—I have no illusions about the extent of our democratic power and my influence—but our scrutiny system is better than those employed in other member states where scrutiny is even less effective.
Mike Gapes: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has studied the Swedish or Danish parliamentary models, but he is wrong about the effectiveness of their Parliaments.
Mr. Hopkins: I am pleased to hear that. I am a great admirer of Denmark and Scandinavia in general, which has a social democratic tradition. The evidence on the effectiveness of the systems used in other member states came out in one of our debates in Committee. I am pleased to be corrected about our Scandinavian colleagues, but I understand that scrutiny is scant in other major nations.
I want to concentrate on the economies of the eurozone which are now in difficulty. There could be a serious crisis if changes are not made. However, I also want to mention Britain's attitude to the euro. A large majority of British voters are against UK membership of the euro. That opinion has not shifted much for a considerable time and it remains firm. There have been many polls on the subject and a recent one suggested that 57 per cent. would vote no and 21 per cent. would vote yes. So a substantial majority is against membership.
What interests me more is that a majority of Labour voters would vote against UK membership. It is right that their view should be represented in the House, and I am pleased that I am in tune with a majority of people who vote for my party.
I caution those euro enthusiasts who are keen on a referendum. Let us consider the opinion polls. Before Denmark's last referendum on euro membership, its whole political establishment—the political class, the political elite—unanimously favoured a yes vote, and the opinions polls showed a 9 per cent. majority in favour of

223
it. However, the vote was lost by 12 per cent. Enthusiasts should bear it in mind that referendums do not always go the way they might like, especially when a change is proposed rather than settling for the status quo. A yes for the status quo is much easier than a yes for change.
Opinions can be mistaken, however. Although I do not think that I am wrong, we need to hear the arguments and the facts. Indeed, I spent time with a Conservative Member who said, "Let's look at the facts." So let us do that. I do not suppose that I have much in common with Sir John Egan, the new president of the Confederation of British Industry, when it comes to politics, but he said:
"Strong arguments in favour of joining"
the euro
"have yet to be made and my suspicion is that there aren't any".
I agree strongly with him on that.
Let us consider trade. We are constantly told that if we do not join the euro and get into the eurozone our trade, and, as a result, our standard of living, will suffer. In the two years since the euro has been in effect, British trade with the eurozone has increased more than any other member state's. UK exports to the eurozone have increased by 24 per cent.; German exports have increased by 23.1 per cent.; and French exports have risen by 21.2 per cent. I suggest that we are doing rather well in trade terms without being a member of the eurozone. I am confident that we can run our economy successfully outside it. I am also sure that it will remain strong while we continue to maintain good relations with our neighbours on the continent.
The real problems relate to the exchange rate. A recent estimate by Oxford Economic Forecasting suggests that if an exchange rate for entry was 10 per cent. above an equilibrium exchange rate, that would cost 4.2 per cent. in terms of output and would cost 300,000 jobs. It is difficult to estimate what an equilibrium exchange rate would be, but that would be the effect were we to be 10 per cent. above it. The only way to have an equilibrium exchange rate is to maintain one's own currency so we can adjust it over time to ensure that it is at an appropriate level in terms of value relative to other currencies. A single currency does not allow that to happen.
It has been said—a suggestion leaked by the Treasury, apparently—that before entry Britain would have to depreciate its currency, or devalue, by 30 per cent. That might be excessive. A more recent figure suggests 20 per cent. because the pound has come down slightly against the euro. Those figures are considerable. I suspect that the eurozone would not accept Britain into the euro with a pre-entry devaluation of that order, because it would give us a substantial competitive advantage and we are already doing quite well. However, it would be disastrous in the long term if we locked in at a high exchange rate.
We have to retain exchange rate flexibility. I am not a floater. I would like a stable exchange rate system, as we had after the war, with perhaps more frequent small changes in rates. That was called "crawling peg" in the 1960s and I am a fan of it. Such flexibility is an essential lever of macroeconomic policy. When we talk about little England, let us not forget that Britain is the fourth largest economy in the world. When one travels to smaller countries in Europe, one realises that we live in a populous and economically powerful country. We are not little England; we are actually quite big Britain.
224
Let us consider the rest of the eurozone, because that is where the problems lie. There are 4 million unemployed people in Germany. Last month, unemployment increased by 60,000. Growth there is optimistically forecast to be about 0.5 per cent. in the next year. So Germany has serious problems. By any standards Germany is going into, or is already in, recession.
In such circumstances a sensible Government would do one of three things, or possibly two or even all three of them. They would try to depreciate their currency if they had a competitiveness problem; they would try to cut interest rates; they would relax fiscal policy. However, Germany cannot do any of those because it is in a single currency arrangement—it cannot depreciate, it cannot cut interest rates and it cannot relax fiscal policy because the stability and growth pact specifically forbids that.
Germany is now in deficit. The deficit is still below 3 per cent., but if Germany gets close to that figure it will be told by the Commission to cut its deficit. If a country is already in a recession and it is told to cut its deficit, it is being told to deflate its economy. If one deflates an economy during a recession, it goes further into that recession; it does not recover. That is what would happen to Germany, so I suspect that it is very worried about its difficulties. Given that its Government are facing an election this year, I imagine that they are trying to hold off any serious decision about the matter until afterwards, but at some point the reckoning will have to come, and I suspect that this will be a topic of discussion in the bars and restaurants of Seville in a few days' time.
One can understand that many Germans are worried about their position in the euro. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) pointed out that 54 per cent. of Germans want the deutschmark back, and that is not because they are being xenophobic or hostile to the rest of the world, but because they realise that they went into the euro with their currency over-valued, and they cannot devalue. That means that there is now an inherent deflationary force in their economy which they cannot change.
France, quite sensibly, has suggested, as has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the growth and stability pact should be made more flexible. However, a member of the Commission—I believe that it was a German—recently said that any attempt by a large country to break the pact would be a disaster, and reminded the French Government that
"the only thing that matters is the promise made in Barcelona".
On the one hand, the Commission is saying that there will be no change and the pact must be rigidly enforced, but on the other hand France is saying, "Let's be a bit flexible." I suspect that this will be another topic of conversation in the bars and restaurants of Seville.
The reality is that it is essential that major economies have separate currencies if there is to be sensible economic management and if countries are to get on well with each other. We can have a mutually agreeable international arrangement for running our economies, as we did in the post-war era, but if we try to force countries together into a single currency when their separate currencies would naturally diverge over time, that will cause serious economic problems.
Britain is in a very advantageous position at the moment. Our economy is stronger than that in the eurozone and our inward investment is higher. There is

225
absolutely no argument for entering the eurozone or joining the euro. Indeed, it is possible, if not probable, that in a few years some countries inside the eurozone will be considering whether they ought to recreate their own currencies.
Mr. Wiggin: One of the difficulties, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, is that once a country has committed itself to the euro and its debt has been denominated in euros, it is impossible for it to withdraw. Countries may be tempted, or have a strong desire, to withdraw from the single currency, but does the hon. Gentleman have any ideas about whether they will be able to do so? I do not think that they can.
Mr. Hopkins: It would not be easy. It would have to be done by international agreement to dissolve the single currency, rather than by a single country withdrawing, and an arrangement would have to be made about the debt. There are examples of groups of nations with a single currency that has been dissolved, sometimes with a lot of economic pain. The Soviet Union is one such example, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia is another more recent one. Not long ago I went to a lecture by the former Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia, who handled that parting of the ways. The two countries successfully separated their currencies. Theirs are not strong economies like ours, but they are functioning. Of course if they both enter the eurozone, their currencies may be reunited.
My argument is that the sensible way forward for coherent and separate economies, with separate polities, is to have their own currency and, over time, to adjust its value relative to that of other countries. In that way, they can ensure that they keep the economy in balance and they do not suffer either from being over-valued and losing out on trade or from being under-valued and having too much inflation. There is a sensible value for most currencies at any particular point in time, but it changes, and the only way to deal with that is to retain one's own currency. I suggest that that is the way forward for Britain.
8.25 pm
Angus Robertson: I am pleased to be able to participate in this important debate on behalf of the largest opposition parties in Scotland and Wales—the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I am also pleased to participate as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, which is set to publish a report on the role of democracy and accountability, and of national Parliaments. Many of the issues that have been discussed today are covered in that report, which I commend to hon. Members.
I want to associate myself entirely with the Foreign Secretary's comments at the beginning of the debate about the tragic situation in Israel. On a less serious note, I dissociate myself entirely from the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and, in the finest civic and inclusive traditions of the SNP, in the run-up to the England-Brazil football game I condemn narrow-minded nationalism and wish England all the best in that match.
Of course, Europe and our relationship with the European Union are reserved matters. It is for Ministers, representing the UK Government and the UK Parliament
226
to channel the wishes and aspirations of the democratically elected politicians of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—despite the fact that the overwhelming proportion of European business relates to devolved matters, so this House rightly has no say in them.
That is the nub of a problem that has not yet been debated today. I find that interesting because we regularly hear, especially from the Labour party, that that is the optimal way to represent the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—yet there has been not a single mention of the views of MSPs, Members of the National Assembly for Wales or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. or of the devolved Executives of those nations. Not one mention was made of those views by the Minister, by Labour Members, by Conservative Members or by Liberal Democrats.
People in Scotland in particular will be astounded that only days after a Council of Ministers meeting on the vital issue of fishing, in which there was a controversial U-turn by Commissioner Franz Fischler on a quota system for the deep-water fisheries to the west of Scotland, the matter has not been mentioned in a debate in a House in which Government and Opposition Members from Unionist parties declare that the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are taken seriously. They are not, and the absence of such matters from the debate is proof of that.
I want to touch on the main issues on the agenda for Seville: the EU convention, immigration, the reform of the European Council and enlargement.
First, on the convention, I start by expressing my appreciation of the work of the only two directly elected Scottish representatives on the convention—Professor Sir Neil McCormick MEP and councillor Keith Brown, both of whom represent my party. I also praise the work of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has taken seriously her role of representing the interests of the House and all its Members. I look forward to continuing discussions with her. I have not yet been approached by the other representative of the House to share any thoughts. The Front Bench of the Conservative party described him as a party nominee—but I hope that is not the approach that he takes to his work.
I am interested in and excited by the role of the convention. It is supposed to listen and to draft new processes in an effort to democratise the decision-making structures of the European Union. I welcome that. We should follow the watchwords adopted by members of the convention, whose task has been laid down by the Governments of the EU: democracy, accountability, transparency and subsidiarity. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations should be leading by example, but the reality is very different.
Let us consider the reality of democracy. The devolved nations in the UK are not directly represented in the convention, unlike the German Länder, which are. The reality of the involvement of Ministers from the devolved Administrations at Council of Ministers meetings is that they attend only a fraction of those meetings, despite the fact that they are elected to represent—
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I must intervene to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Länder are not represented in the convention. No regions are directly represented.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. I am certain that he understands that one of the representatives from the upper House of the German Parliament is a representative of a German Land, because the upper House of the German Parliament is made up of the representatives of the German Länder. Ergo the Länder are represented directly in the convention.
With regard to the involvement of Ministers from the various devolved Administrations in the Council of Ministers discussions, I referred earlier to the meeting of the Fisheries Council, which is vital to Scotland. I have the agenda and the attendance list, from which I see that the UK Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), was present this week, but the Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture—the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Mr. Ross Finnie of the Liberal Democrats—was not.
Similarly, the statistics for recent ministerial meetings on justice and home affairs, which are vital to Scotland, with its own legal system, show that since devolution the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, who is responsible for the Justice portfolio, the Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, has attended only four out of 19 meetings.
The reality of democratic representation leaves a lot to be desired. If hon. Members do not take my word for it, they should listen to the recent comments of the Scottish Labour Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Bill Miller, who I understand has a pretty senior role in the party of European Socialists. He described the efforts of the Scottish Executive in the European Union as being "virtually zilch". On the democratic element of the agenda set by the convention, much is left to be desired.
On accountability, it is astounding that not one UK Minister from any Department has ever given pre-Council or post-Council evidence to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament—or, to my knowledge, to the National Assembly for Wales or to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It is also a fact that paperwork giving notice of Council of Ministers meetings is not forwarded regularly by the various UK Government Departments to the Scottish Executive. That was confirmed in the recent report to the European Scrutiny Committee. Hon. Members who have not picked up on the minutiae of that may find it rather amusing that the letter from DEFRA confirming that it has not been forwarding letters to the devolved Administrations states:
"It would seem sensible to do so and I would therefore be grateful if you could supply a contact name for each of the following:

the Scottish Executive

the Scottish Parliament

the Scottish Parliament's Library

the National Assembly for Wales

the Northern Ireland Executive

the Northern Ireland Assembly".

The devolved Administrations have not even been receiving the relevant paperwork. That is in breach of the concordats, which state that information should be
228
exchanged. It is also, incidentally, in direct contradiction to written answers that I have received from the relevant Government Departments, which claimed to me that all relevant information is passed on, whereas the reality is very different.
The reality of transparency—another of the key issues that the convention is following—also leaves a lot to be desired in the context of the devolved institutions in the UK. How is transparency served when, for example, Scottish Executive Ministers claim that they have been at meetings when they have not? Again, Mr. Finnie from the Liberal Democrats claimed to be at a key meeting, then the Scottish Executive was forced to "clarify the situation". There had been an administrative error and he had not been at the meeting as claimed.
How transparent is it that the Scottish Executive falsely tried to hike its attendance statistics in a parliamentary answer to the Scottish Parliament? It had to do a U-turn on that as well, and admit its appalling track record by confirming a lesser figure. All that can be read in the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament. It might interest Conservative Members that the attendance record of Scottish Executive Ministers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is now even worse than it was under the Conservative party pre-devolution.
It is interesting that the issue of representation at Council of Ministers meetings was raised at First Minister's questions in Aberdeen recently. First Minister Jack McConnell claimed to MSPs that Scottish Ministers have led Fisheries Council meetings, although they never have. He was forced to make a U-turn to explain that Scottish Ministers have never led any Council of Ministers meeting when the Scottish interest is overwhelming within the UK.
In relation to transparency, it is also interesting that European policy making in the UK is governed by concordats that seek to maintain confidentiality—known to most people as secrecy—at a time when Ministers are advocating that we should open up the proceedings of the Council of Ministers, which I fully endorse. However, when information is sought about how policy is formed between the various Governments in the United Kingdom, they say that that is unnecessary.
Mr. Wiggin: I recognise how meticulous the hon. Gentleman is in his research. With all the claims about people being at meetings at which they were not present, especially with regard to the parties that he mentioned, does he know whether any expenses claims have been submitted? Perhaps he has researched that matter as well.
Angus Robertson: Unfortunately I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I have not pursued that issue, although he might wish to do so. I do not want to cast aspersions on Scottish Executive Ministers about the expenses involved in Brussels trips, as I am more concerned about the political claims that they make about turning up and standing up for Scotland when they do not even bother to be present. Incidentally, they skive off 90 per cent. of meetings of the Council of Ministers, too.
On transparency, it was interesting to hear the Foreign Secretary say that he welcomed the conclusion of the recent European Scrutiny Committee report. He may want to reread the report; if he does so, he will note that the Committee is in favour of changing the rules on confidentiality with regard to interaction between the various levels of government in the UK.

229
The four key issues that are to be pursued at the convention also include subsidiarity. As I said, the reality in the UK is that 90 per cent. of Council of Ministers meetings are not attended by the democratically elected Ministers of Scotland. The statistics are even worse for Wales and Northern Ireland. Similarly, it is beyond me to understand what sort of ambition the First Minister, Mr. Jack McConnell—no doubt he is supported vigorously by the UK Government—has with regard to the acceptance of the idea that any eventual subsidiarity watchdog might have fewer representatives than there are member states of the European Union. Of course, that would preclude direct representation of interests from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I do not know whether there are any Members in the Chamber from Wales—[Interruption.] I must clarify for the Minister the fact that I meant Back Benchers. Perhaps he can explain the very strange decision to close the Welsh representation office in Brussels without any consultation. While every other part of Europe is opening offices willy-nilly to pursue and fight the good fight for the interests of Scotland, Catalonia or wherever else, Wales is suddenly not to have any such representation. I do not know why the Labour-Lib Dem Administration in Wales has decided in favour of that proposal.
Mike Gapes: As the hon. Gentleman is so interested in Wales, can he tell us where his friends from Plaid Cymru are?
Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. First, he must understand that I am speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. My colleague who speaks for Plaid Cymru on these issues is currently in a meeting dealing with objective 1 status for Wales. There is, of course, a question about whether the UK Government are going to include in the next comprehensive spending review a budget line to cover the match funding for objective 1 in Wales. Perhaps the Minister, with his Welsh interests, will be able to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that a specific budget line for match funding for objective 1 will be included.
Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in Wales, let me reassure him that every nationalist attack on this Government in respect of objective 1 funding has been shown to be untrue. The nationalists said that we would not get the funding, and we did; they said that we would not get requisite funding and resources from the Treasury, and we did; and they said that we would not get match funding, and we did. All their allegations have proved to be unfounded, as his is now.
Angus Robertson: In that case, I await the announcement on the budget line in the comprehensive spending review, as will all the people in Wales. We do not have long to wait. Following the Minister's intervention, and as he is a member of the convention's working group on subsidiarity, I look forward to hearing for the first time from the Government about how the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be pursued in the convention. I would also be interested to
230
hear whether the UK Government will support the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which has a Labour majority, in favouring the idea of devolved Administrations and Parliaments with a legislative status having partnership status with the Commission. I am interested in whether the Minister and the UK Government will battle for the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Call me cynical, but I do not think they will.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to contribute, but I should like very briefly to mention a number of other important points. Clearly, immigration has been creeping up the agenda at home and on the continent, despite the fact—it is not repeated enough—that the total number of asylum seekers now is only half what it was in 1992. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that we need an effective common European policy. I take the subject seriously because of personal experience—my mother came to this island as a refugee after the war. Scotland, of course, is a country of immigration and has benefited for centuries from immigrants, particularly from Ireland, England, the Asian sub-continent, eastern Europe and elsewhere.
I am concerned about the rise of the far right of Pim Fortuyn and Jörg Haider. In Germany there are serious worries about the so-called "Haiderung" of the Liberal Democrats' sister party, the Free Democrats, and, indeed, Edmund Stoiber's CSU, which campaigned under the slogan "Kinder statt Inder"—children instead of Indians. That should be of concern to hon. Members, especially as German opinion polls put the CDU/CSU in pole position ahead of the SPD.
We are anxious about the role played by certain parts of the media in relation to immigration. A recent MORI poll showed that respondents believed that the UK hosts 23 per cent. of the world's asylum seekers and refugees, which proves that perceptions have been massively skewed. We must appreciate that a number of newspapers have been grossly irresponsible in their coverage of the subject.
I was pleased that when the Scottish National party recently commissioned a poll by Systems 3, the main polling organisation in Scotland, to establish the key perceptions of people in Scotland about immigration and asylum seeking, it found that a massive majority of Scots reject racist attitudes and believe that all people in Scotland should have equal rights and fair treatment, regardless of their colour, creed or country of origin. Similarly, Scots believe that incomers make a positive contribution to Scottish society. By an even greater margin—nearly three to one—Scots oppose the deportation of incomers living in Scotland.
We have a declining population because successive Labour and Conservative Governments managed to put our economy into relative decline, so it is essential that we welcome people from elsewhere who bring with them skills, energy and immense commitment. Before I entered the House, I reported for the BBC from Austria and saw at first hand the dangers of populism and media hysteria about immigration. We should take every opportunity to tackle extremism head on, and find sensible and humane solutions to the challenges and opportunities of immigration.

231
I shall conclude now, because other Members wish to speak. I wish the Government well in seeking an appropriate conclusion to the Seville summit. I firmly support measures to reform the EU, make it more effective, help it to remain confederal, and ensure that it is closer to the people. We need a Europe of nations and nation states. Unlike some Members of Parliament, I believe that Scotland is a nation. To secure democracy, accountability, transparency and subsidiarity, the best answer for Scotland is independence in Europe.
8.48 pm
Mike Gapes: Our debate is taking place at an interesting time. I want to go back to the debates that were going on just before the countries that joined the single currency did so. As a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Parliament before last, I went to Portugal and had discussions about whether the Portuguese economy would be sufficiently robust for it to join the euro. There was a general view in the British media and among Conservative Members that that would be impossible for Portugal. Yet the Portuguese joined the euro and the Portuguese economy is a success within it. We saw stories saying that the launch of the single currency would be a failure, but on 1 January this year, in notes and coins, it was a success. The process went very smoothly. After a long period in which the euro fell against the dollar, five months later it is going the other way, and the budget deficit in the American economy may lead to serious long-term problems.
Of course, the Eurosceptic press—the Murdoch and Conrad Black newspapers—will want to run stories about the euro saying that all is doom and gloom and that it will fail. Unfortunately, some hon. Members also push a doom-laden scenario. Most of them sit on the Conservative Benches, but I regret to say that some are Labour Members—they are not here at the moment, so unfortunately they cannot hear me. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) to the Chamber. I am referring to him, among others, so it is important that he hears what I have to say. They believe that the economy will collapse, the euro will disintegrate, and all its member countries will leave it. That is nonsense. The single currency will generate economic growth and expand trade and company relationships: eventually that economy will be the dynamic for 400 million people in our continent.
An enlargement process is taking place. If several new members join the European Union in four or five years' time, they will all join the euro, and the single currency will extend from the Baltic down to the Mediterranean. In a decade or 15 years' time, it may reach all the way across to the borders of Russia and Ukraine. We in this country are living in cloud cuckoo land if we think that we will not be affected by that process. Unfortunately, there is an element of wishful thinking on the part of my hon. Friend and others.
Mr. Hopkins: I think that the wishful thinking is all on my hon. Friend's side. He has a passionate belief in something that he wants to happen. My argument is that the arrangement is inherently deflationary and is causing problems and stresses between members of the eurozone, which are doing less well than those outside it.
Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend missed my earlier remarks. I shall not repeat them, but I suggest that he read tomorrow's Hansard.
232
We live in a global economy with three large currency blocs, and countries that are left outside face a real danger of speculation against their currencies. Owing to the excellent economic management of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are not experiencing that problem, but throughout the past 60 years the British economy has faced all kinds of difficulties, including runs on our currency and having to borrow from other central banks. I do not wish our economy to get into that state again.
This debate is about wider questions. Reference has been made to immigration and asylum. I made two speeches on that subject last week, and I shall not repeat them now, but I want to draw attention to the fact that we in the European Union countries must recognise that there may be a downside to enlargement if we start to build robust external borders against potential applicant countries. The changes mean that we need to be especially sensitive to Bulgaria and Romania. British Customs officials are already helping Bulgarian efforts to stop smuggling. People from the Home Office and our police force are helping other countries in central and eastern Europe. Other EU countries, especially Germany, are also providing assistance. That is the way forward.
Three weeks ago, I was in Bulgaria with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and we discussed NATO enlargement. At the end of our proceedings, we adopted a resolution that recognised the importance of sending positive signals to countries that wish to be part of the NATO defence alliance. There will be a major summit in Prague in November when six or seven new members could join. In 1999, three new members—Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland—joined. The 19 could therefore become 26 or even more members. However, I am worried that the process is not being thought through sufficiently sensitively.
There is a danger that the United States, in its enthusiasm to push for the widest possible enlargement of NATO for political reasons, will weaken its effectiveness. That raises a fundamental issue for Europeans. We should not get into a position whereby NATO is less effective and the US can pick and choose about defence matters. We have not yet built the strong European security and defence policy that will enable us as Europeans to act without the US, if necessary.
We need a strong EU for our European interests. We have witnessed American attitudes to Kyoto, steel and the US farm Bill. We know that the compassionate conservatives across the pond tend to global unilateralism. I believe that we in Europe have to defend our global interests. That means a strong EU with this country at its political and economic heart.
8.58 pm
Mr. John Baron: I am pleased to be called to speak in such a good humoured and wide ranging debate. One could focus on several issues, but I want to confine my remarks to one of the EU's most serious deficiencies: the tendency of its overseas budget to be increasingly dominated by political considerations at the expense of its stated objective of relieving global poverty. An increasing amount of aid is being directed towards middle-income countries for political purposes and the poor of the world are consequently suffering.
The crime is compounded by the fact that the low-income countries need our help more than ever. Recent research shows that world inequality is increasing.

233
According to the economist Branko Milanovic, the richest 1 per cent. of people earn more than the 60 per cent. of households at the bottom of the income distribution.
Previous research has been able to compare only the average income of countries. A more recent study shows that the gap between rich and poor countries is much greater than was previously understood. Meanwhile, the World Bank has warned, in a new study, that many developing countries are at risk of not achieving the poverty goals established by the United Nations.
In addition, we all see regular evidence on our television screens that much more needs to be done. For example, last week, the United Nations World Food Programme warned that southern Africa is facing its worst food crisis for more than a decade, with about 13 million people facing starvation. Yet, despite all this evidence that much needs to be done, the EU is increasingly turning its back on those most in need. The latest figures show that the proportion of the overseas aid package spent in low-income countries was 39 per cent. in 2000, compared with 76 per cent. in 1990 and 85 per cent. in 1980. The most recent figure represents a new low.
There is little doubt that the EU is increasingly playing petty politics with the poor of the world to foster stability in the countries surrounding its borders, rather than eliminating poverty. Why else do Asia and Latin America combined receive only 12 per cent. of the EU overseas aid package, when one third of the people living in absolute poverty live in India alone? Why else does Poland receive twice as much aid as Asia and Latin America combined? Why are the top 10 recipients all countries bordering the EU?
Despite those facts, this country allows nearly 30 per cent. of its overseas aid budget, which amounts to nearly £800 million a year, to be directed through the EU. I believe that that is very wrong. No single country can end world poverty. Only a team effort by the richer nations and the multilateral institutions can effectively tackle the problem. However, it is wrong that we are providing UK funds to bodies that do not share that objective. As a country, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Rather than trying to reform the system, however, the Government are set to increase the amount that we commit to the EU overseas aid package by more than £1 billion by 2003ߝ04. Clearly, this must be wrong, because all we are doing is committing more money to those middle-income countries bordering the EU at the expense of the low-income countries that are increasingly desperate for aid.
Surely the time has come, if only as a matter of principle, to say to the Commission, "Enough is enough. Either change your objectives and help the poor of the world or we shall ourselves increasingly commit resources to achieving that objective, using moneys gained by reducing our contribution to the overseas aid package." Britain has built up an enviable record on international aid over the years, and our aid agencies enjoy a similar reputation, yet the Government appear to be attempting to sacrifice our good name on the altar of the EU overseas aid package.
Meanwhile, despite the EU being the worst aid agency in the world—in my opinion—the only target that the Government have published in their recent White Paper
234
on measuring the effectiveness of EU aid is set for 2006. Must we wait another four years before we can determine whether things are getting better, when it is increasingly evident that the percentage of aid given to low-income countries continues to fall? That will be another four years during which money will continue to be wasted, mismanagement persist and hundreds of thousands of lives will be needlessly lost, all because the Government refuse to take a principled stand and challenge the EU's increasing tendency to play petty politics.
One of the main priorities of politics must be the relief of poverty, wherever it exists. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree with that objective; it is just that we differ as to the means of achieving that goal. Yet, when dealing with one of the most powerful of tools to alleviate poverty—international aid—the Government have clearly turned their back on the poor of the world by allowing the EU to discriminate in favour of the middle-income countries.
I urge the Government to act now, before too many more lives are needlessly lost, because actions speak louder than words. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on how the Government plan to put the situation right.
9.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be brief, to ensure that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), who is representing the Scottish Conservative party, can speak.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rightly said in a pamphlet that if the EU did not exist, we would have to invent it. There are those who stick their heads in the sand and believe that globalisation will go away; similarly, others believe that globalisation can continue without our strengthening Europe. Both positions are clearly wrong. In the UK in the 1970s, the left took the view that we could isolate ourselves economically, but it is clear that that is no longer an option. From the moment at which it was possible to press a button and transfer funds across national frontiers, the world started to change. In that regard, I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who are adopting a pre-1980s, rather than a post-1980s, position.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Miller: No, I cannot because of the time. The debate that is taking place within Europe concerns not a desire to destroy cultural heritage, but a desire to create a vehicle that benefits its nation states within an increasingly globalised economy.
The tenor of the remarks of those who are against the euro merely exacerbates the problems that we face. As has already been said, it seems inevitable that a eurozone will stretch across Europe. The fanciful belief exists that we could isolate ourselves from it, but such a mechanism would be impossible to sustain as major currency zones become stronger. It would be interesting to hear parliamentary debates in a couple of generations' time—although none of us will be able to hear them—on the next phases in the evolution of currency structures.

235
Debates such as this with be looked back on with a degree of amusement. Although the economic structures of nation states will increasingly converge, culture, history and language will be protected.
On the sad day of 11 September, I was in Tallinn, meeting colleagues from across Europe to discuss a parliamentary information technology project. We were stunned by the unfolding news, but there was a tremendous spirit of comradeship. We recognised that developments in Europe, at least, are taking us forward, strengthening the political basis on which we operate, and driving away some of the terrible history of Europe. That is an important dimension, but in expanding Europe and wholeheartedly welcoming new member countries as quickly as possible, we need not turn our backs on our transatlantic relationship, or our relationship with the rest of the Commonwealth. To do so would not be the way forward. We need to embrace, and indeed strengthen, all aspects of those older relationships as far as possible.
There will be vigorous competition, as our current relationship with the United States demonstrates. In respect of matters such as steel, America is perhaps adopting an unreasonable position. It is clear that we can envisage a better working relationship with our European partners that seeks to avoid such problems.
In the longer term, as the globalisation of the economy continues, structures will need to change. The current expansion programme in Europe, which is supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats—I am never too sure about the Conservatives' position—will present us with some significant problems. It would be foolish to disregard the significance of the CAP, which must be resolved. However, that must not be used to block expansion. It is clear from my discussions with aspirant member countries that they understand that the CAP must be reformed. Similarly, discussion has taken place about immigration and crime.
It was fascinating to hear one contribution from a Conservative Member that supported the notion of cross-border co-operation to fight crime. As I remember, the Conservatives voted against measures intended to bring that co-operation about.
The complexity of the issues is no excuse for preventing expansion or ducking the issue of the currency. That complexity, however, underlines the need for change in some of Europe's institutions. That is why I am strongly in favour of the reform agenda promoted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is important that we carry people with us by improving transparency and accountability, while at the same time taking the logical approach—which reflects the nature of Europe—of protecting the national Parliaments as the sovereign bodies within a Europe of nation states.
I am keen to see that happen, and that is the principled position on which the British electorate want us to go forward. It is not inward looking. It would protect the great institutions we have at the same time as embracing all the benefits of expansion and taking account of the increasing globalisation of the economy. I know that the argument will continue, but—as other hon. Members have said—we must present it in a mature way to the British people in the months to come. We have to debate some incredibly important issues, not least of which is the recognition that the nirvana that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North seeks is impossible, given the nature of the present economic structures of the planet.
9.13 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: I thank those hon. Members who have truncated their remarks to allow me to contribute to the debate. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) suggested that this was a decisive moment in European affairs, and it is appropriate that we are having this debate today.
The future of Europe is not only being discussed at an international level. Contrary to other remarks made tonight, I find that it is regularly the subject of strong views in my postbag, and at surgeries and markets, pubs and meetings across Galloway. It is taken as read by both sides in the debate that the EU needs to be perceived as relevant to our daily lives. The turnout at the last European election suggests that that is a real problem, with the average man in the street not motivated to vote in European polls.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) mentioned the democratic crisis, but that crisis is all the more surprising given the pace of change in European affairs. Europe is changing. It has become much more significant in terms of the way in which it affects our daily lives. But the United Kingdom is changing—has changed—too. I do not believe that the manner in which we interact with Europe has changed to reflect the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The fact that it has not changed has only served to increase lack of interest in a European institution that continues to be viewed as disconnected from the domestic political scene.
A specific aspect of that distancing concerns me today. In 1999, devolution created a Scottish Parliament with executive powers over a substantial list of policy areas. The settled will of the Scots gave responsibility for education policy—along with health, law and order and many other policies—to a Scottish ministerial team in the Scottish Parliament. Although my party and I were the sole dissenting voices, we accept the decision, and I now believe that the Government must be persuaded to proceed on the basis of its implications—and those implications include our dealings with Europe.
Currently, United Kingdom delegations to EU decision-making bodies and working groups are formed in Whitehall, irrespective of the policy being made in Scotland. I understand that Ministers and officials from the Scottish Executive are often invited to join such delegations, but in this instance "often" is surely not good enough. I feel that when Europe is discussing devolved matters the devolved Administrations should be involved in the UK team as of right.
To date, the Government's record has been patchy to say the least. It has not been lost on the Scottish public that the party which delivered devolution for Scotland seems once more reluctant to recognise its implications fully. The Government will insist that they have consulted the Administrations regularly—[Interruption.] I urge Ministers to wait for my conclusions.
The current arrangement whereby a party shares power in Holyrood while holding it in Westminster cannot be expected to last for ever. Indeed, a change at both ends is long overdue. The only practical solution is for the Scottish Executive to be involved, as of right, in the UK group contributing to European policy debate on devolved issues.

237
While advocating a stronger voice for Scotland within the parameters of the United Kingdom, I abhor the notion of "a Europe of the regions". That soundbite is the objective of many, simply because it subsumes the very nation states to which we belong. I have little doubt that the regional government agenda of the present Administration is intended to further the plan within the UK in preparation for a greater future role for the regions in Europe.
That is the Government's agenda. It is not mine or that of the official Opposition. In the Europe of the future, the nation state can and must remain supreme. Only through the continuance of the nation state as the building block of Europe can we recognise the imbalances that may have developed, and seek redress in years to come. Anything else will lead to a lack of clarity and create national resentment.
In Scotland, for example, we have continued to suffer significant losses in our most vulnerable communities through the malfunctioning of the common fisheries policy. As Members will know, that is causing resentment. The CFP highlights the great divergence that is often experienced between good intentions and the reality of EU political interference. Scotland accounts for more than 70 per cent. of the UK fishing fleet, and has experienced a similar proportion of the devastation following falling fish stocks. The CFP's ambition is
"ensuring rational and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks through conservation and management policies designed to protect resources and reflect the needs of the fishing industry".
In fact, we have seen the opposite.
As a result of the politics of failure in Brussels, more than 50 per cent. of CFP support has gone to one nation—pain—while 1.1 billion euro of financial support per annum has failed to preserve stocks. That is the kind of politically driven madness that gives the European Union such a poor reputation for delivering for its members through such programmes.
I recently returned from a visit to Denmark, another country that has suffered greatly from structural changes in fishing. During my visit, I was made very much aware of the Danes' eagerness to progress reform in the crucial areas where the EU at present is failing. I wish the country well when it accedes to the presidency in July, and urge it to deal with the real issues that stand in the way of Europe delivering for its member states.
That task is to become even more onerous with the onset of enlargement, which the Danes are desperate to have moved to the top of the agenda. I am happy for it to be there, as enlargement will nail once and for all the mirage of a one-speed Europe. Before and after expansion, flexibility should be our watchword, allowing each nation to reap the benefits of free trade without being bound up by the political agenda.
In short, the EU has the power to add massively to our economic well-being. It has done so in the past, and will do so again. If flexibility remains at the forefront of our debate on the future of Europe, I for one will be its strongest advocate, as I will for Scotland's place at the UK's table in Brussels.
9.21 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: On the brink of enlargement, all being well, the EU is faced with great opportunities, and with its greatest dangers for a generation. It can aim to make itself, in the words of Romano Prodi, an "advanced supranational democracy", or it can strive to be a Europe of nation states in a single market working together to promote peace and prosperity in Europe. It is clear from recent elections what the people of Europe want, and we ignore our people at our peril.
The EU will never become a real force for improvement in all our societies until the democratic deficit is dealt with, as many hon. Members have noted today. This Government have failed to deal with the matter in any substantive way. Their policy so far has been marked by a rudderless drift towards a more centralised Europe. Their concrete ideas have been few and far between. One such has been the Prime Minister's absurd idea of a second chamber for the European Parliament. It has been roundly dismissed by every commentator and most politicians on the continent of Europe.
The next big thing, which the Minister for Europe has been touting for the Prime Minister, is this idea of a president of the European Council. That person is supposed to give Europe a single voice, especially on foreign policy. The president would have to be a remarkable man—or woman—because we have seen how hard it has been for Europe to find a single voice on foreign policy in any formalised sense, whether on the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, or on the middle east. Of course it is important, from time to time, to coalesce with a joint viewpoint and approach, but that is quite different.
Above all, this British Government do little to deal with the lack of democracy and accountability in the European Union's institutions. In too many elections on the continent, we have seen extremist parties coming forward in response to that. Those parties have different causes and reasons in different countries, but they are united by a sense that people's voices are not being listened to, and that the governors are becoming more distant from the governed.
The solution cannot be to create what Romano Prodi called an "advanced supranational democracy". The desire to build such an entity is a sad sign that some in the European Union do not want to listen to the loud popular voices that are calling for societies where power comes from the bottom up, where the rulers must respond to popular concerns. The Commission is clearly still stuck in a time warp of idealistic thinking, frozen in the 1950s. This has little to do with the problems and needs of Europe today.
We are all familiar with the Government's wish to make Europe a superpower, as the Prime Minister has said, but we have yet to hear anything from the Government on how such a plan is realisable. It is natural that different nations will have different views about what their interests might be and about the values that they consider to be most important to promote abroad. It is only when we have calls for "more Europe" in foreign and security policy that it becomes a problem. The unavoidable logic leads either to the imposition of some member states' foreign policy on others or a subjection to the lowest common denominator. Of course it is to our

239
advantage for the nations of Europe to combine their foreign policies from time to time when they wish, but that is not something to be forced. These grand dreams do nothing to promote a Europe that responds to today's needs.
The European Union should, above all, be an engine for its people's prosperity. That has to he the priority, and it was its original purpose. The Government have talked a lot about this; we have heard a great deal about getting Europe to embrace the enterprise agenda, making it the most dynamic economic region in the world. The Lisbon agenda has been in action for more than two years and yet it has let down Europe's businesses and workers.
We heard how, at Stockholm last year, the Prime Minister was delivering economic reform in Europe and jobs in Britain. Yet three months ago he was forced to admit to the House that at Stockholm, progress stalled. That was quite a climbdown from the talk about that Council's "good news".
Sadly, the Government have not lived up to their promises where it matters most and are failing to deliver. Let us look at some of the targets set at Lisbon to see what has become of them. In his statement to the House after the Lisbon council, the Prime Minister told us that all government was to be done fully online by 2003. I tried to find out what progress had been made in reaching the target but was told in a written answer that the information was not held centrally. So the Government are clearly up to date on that one.
We heard about the need to increase the amount of electronic commerce conducted in Europe and Britain, but in answer to a written question I was told that the Government have no means of measuring that amount. There was a target to halve youth unemployment in Europe by 2010. Since then, youth unemployment has fallen by 1 per cent—progress, I grant the Minister, but very modest. There was a target to allow electronic access to all the main public services by 2003. We learn that slightly more than half of those services are e-enabled. Some progress has been made, but I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can guarantee that the target will be met on time. It is crucial that the spirit of Lisbon becomes a reality. So far, the Government have not persuaded our partners to deliver.
In reality, the Government's achievements have fallen far behind their claims and ambitions. The people of Britain want less hot air about Europe being a superpower but real delivery to make the European Union a catalyst in the creation of jobs and wealth for its people.
The second great challenge and purpose that Europe faces is to make enlargement a success. We cannot afford to jeopardise this great task, upon which the future prosperity of eastern Europe and important opportunities for British business rest. One obstacle, of course, has been the Nice treaty. We told the Government repeatedly before the treaty was signed that it would likely be more about integration than preparing Europe for enlargement. We have been proved right, because the Irish people recognised that the treaty, inter alia, would take more from their sovereignty than they were prepared to give. They rejected it and may, despite the pressure put on them, reject it again. If so, we would need a new accession treaty ready for the candidate countries. It should contain those parts of the Nice treaty that are needed for enlargement, which we have happily acknowledged and
240
accepted. A short, simple treaty is needed and the Government must actively work towards putting together a plan B if a second Irish referendum rejects the Nice treaty. Anything less is ostrich-like behaviour and absolutely wrong. It would be a tragedy if enlargement were imperilled because of the unnecessary baggage attached to the Nice treaty.
The Government continue to have an out-of-date geopolitical agenda. Once upon a time, the Labour party refused to face up to the challenges of the communist era. Absurdly, it abandoned its policy of unilateral disarmament only as the cold war ended. Labour is behind the times again today. It appears to subscribe to a new type of Europe that is increasingly out of favour. People do not want monoliths imposed upon them any more—they want institutions that work from the bottom up, not ones that dictate to them.
The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) mentioned several issues that are wholly pertinent to the future of Europe; for example, reform of the common agricultural policy—a point taken up by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). The right hon. Gentleman referred to the economic tests for the euro, although I suggest that only one test is relevant to the Government—whether they can win a referendum.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an accurate warning against any form of anti-Americanism, and pointed out the importance of co-operation between Europe and the United States. Many of us will disagree with some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it is well worth reading for its view of Europe and our relationship with the rest of the world.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale correctly said that over the past few months—and indeed the past few years—the Government have posed questions about the future of Europe but provided no answers.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on her role as a representative of the House of Commons and wish her well. She said that the convention had broad terms of reference. We thought it rather odd, however, that the chairman of the convention—who should be disinterested as he has an important role—was advocating the establishment of an EU diplomatic service and EU embassies. That seems a curious dichotomy. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that there seems to be some clash in that regard. None the less, we support her in the view that the EU must be made to be successful. I hope that the convention will play an important part.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) talked of opacity in the European Union and about the old-fashioned, statist character of the EU. He is wholly correct. Lack of transparency has helped to cause so much of the alienation of the peoples of Europe from EU institutions. My right hon. Friend referred to the hideous weight of the acquis communautaire. All those things must be dealt with for people to reconnect and for the convention to be successful.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) gave his views on the euro. It is significant that there are differences of view throughout the party political spectrum, although the only one that he suggested is that he has been subjected to abuse for holding his views.

241
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that political elites should no longer have the power that they currently hold in the EU. He also spoke of the effects of the CAP on enlargement.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the reform agenda. He, too, spoke about enlargement. It was a great pleasure to hear from him again. I remind him of our warnings during the preparation for Nice about everything that could go wrong—the impact of enlargement, putting baggage on the treaty that should not have been there. That is exactly what happened in practice and the consequences are there for everybody to see.
We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). He talked about the global overview and spoke of the lessons of 11 September—the need for flexibility in a military response.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) talked about the importance of retaining our currency. He also referred to statistics showing that Britain was doing well despite not being a member of the eurozone.
A point made in the contribution of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan): how we relate the devolved constitutional architecture of the United Kingdom to the institutions and practices of the European Union. We need to address that.
We heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). I point out to him that the euro will do well only if the underlying economies of Europe do well. That depends on low taxation, deregulation and a proper competitive environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was right to talk about the imperfections in EU aid policy, which have been widely discussed throughout the European Union.
Since the second world war we have seen the world move on—to echo the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. It was a perfectly legitimate and admirable desire among Europe's leaders to create a community that would prevent war from ever happening again. In that respect, there is no doubt that the Community has been particularly successful, but we have now moved on to a point where those old-fashioned blocs, which were relevant before, are no longer relevant in the 21st century.
There is a lively debate about the future of the architecture of the EU. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have had numerous meetings to discuss that point with politicians, diplomats and other opinion formers from all over the EU and the accession countries. Happily, more and more of our sister parties are taking over as the governing parties in Europe. They, too, reject in many instances the corporatist, statist, high taxation and interventionist culture that has so damaged the EU's economic performance.
To enjoy public acceptance, the EU will need to find radical ways to decentralise authority and to reinforce our national Parliaments. It is absolutely crucial to have a finality of competencies at the centre of our EU structures, to assure people that the remorseless process of integration and harmonisation will be arrested and that
242
what is done at the remote centre, which is so unaccountable, will be minimised. That is hugely important for the convention to consider and for the IGC in 2004 to address; otherwise people will simply not feel comfortable with the relationship with the EU.
The Conservative party has already produced many constructive proposals to deal with the democratic deficit and the need for economic liberalisation and reform, but there is clearly much more to do. However, we are at a crossroads. Everything points to a new European architecture that is flexible, open and more transparent. Nothing that we have heard today from the Government thus far in any way goes to the heart of those matters. Just as the Government while in opposition failed to face up to the great geopolitical challenge of the cold war, today they are frozen in a mindset of Europe utterly unsuited to the challenges of the 21st century.
9.37 pm
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I always enjoy following the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). I attribute his great fluency and charm to the fact that he was educated at the university of Cape Town. I agree with at least on one thing that he said. He wanted a flexible, open and transparent Europe, and I totally agree with him about that. However, I deprecate the fact that, when he refers to the Irish referendum result, he always seems to gloat and to be delighted that the result could wreck the whole enlargement process. As I have reminded Conservative Members before, the candidate countries know who is on their side. They know that the Labour Government back them and that the Tories try to sabotage them.
On the recent election results in Europe, the voters of Britain will remember when the next general election comes that those right-wing Governments elected in France, Denmark, Portugal and Italy have all found that their national footballs teams have been knocked out of the World cup. I am sure that that will be a key factor in the next general election campaign here in Britain.
It has been a particular pleasure to hear Conservative Members' interventions, given their uncharacteristic silence on matters European in recent months—so much so that The Independent reported on 5 June that the Leader of the Opposition was planning to take a back seat in the no campaign because of fears that his party's unpopularity would damage it.
Dominic Cummings, the Leader of the Opposition's director of strategy, memorably said:
"the biggest potential threat to the survival of the pound is the Conservative party. If the Conservative party were to define the anti-euro campaign and articulate its message as it has in the past, then Blair has a real opportunity to win a referendum".
As Clint Eastwood said:
"a man's got to know his limitations".
What the Tory director of strategy is saying is that Tory support is the kiss of death. Perhaps we should ask the Tories to pledge their wholehearted support to the Brazilian football team ahead of Friday's match.
The director of strategy at Conservative headquarters also commented that
"it is difficult for some Tories to accept—but nevertheless true—that for many people, just about the only thing less popular than the euro is the Tory party".

243
The difference, of course, is that the euro is increasing in value and credibility, while voters have been selling shares in the Tories for a decade. Many Tories want their party to run the no campaign. One Conservative was quoted as saying:
"We hope it will be run by Thatcher, Tebbit and Duncan Smith"
I presume that the fourth horseman of the apocalypse was unavailable.
I fear that we heard nothing new in Conservatives' contributions today. We heard the same old scratchy record of suspicion rather than engagement, and the same feverish defensiveness, rather than our confidence in driving forward the agenda in Europe. Several spurious points, to which I need to reply, were made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He asked about the Laeken declaration and implied that it was some kind of vehicle for a superstate. He should read it. It states:
"Citizens want results, they do not want a superstate".
I acknowledge that he said that he wanted enlargement to be on track by 2004. We want that, and we are determined to achieve it, which is why ratification of the Nice treaty by all countries of the European Union, including Ireland, is essential to keep it on track.
The right hon. Gentleman may want further elucidation on the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended yesterday's General Affairs Council meeting, and I attended its meeting last Monday when the CAP was discussed. Our agenda and the leadership given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary secured a position whereby direct payments were not part of the policy on the agricultural chapter. That was left to be settled at the October meeting of the European Council. That would not prejudice the outcome of the mid-term review, whose initial proposals are due to be published in a few weeks' time. If some countries, including France, had ensured a reference to direct payments in the GAC conclusions, that might have prejudiced the Commission's draft proposals. That was a major achievement.
On Zimbabwe, we expect it to be on the agenda of the next GAC meeting. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will ask for that to happen.
On common foreign and security policy, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is an intergovernmental matter and will remain so. I also remind him that common foreign and security policy—which he seems to deprecate and about which he seems deeply unhappy—was established under the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government of which he was a member in the early 1990s introduced. The treaty was taken through the House on a three-line Whip with timetable motions all the way through. I remember that because I was speaking against it. Maastricht established the single currency, the European Union, and the objectives of a common defence policy and a European Union citizenship. It was also a treaty to advance European integration—a Conservative agenda.
Mr. Ancram: The Minister for Europe asked me to read the Laeken declaration, which I have done. I want to quote one part of it. Paragraph 2 states:
"The construction of a political union has begun".
Will he explain what he understands by that?
Peter Hain: Yes. That is what was in the Maastricht treaty, which the right hon. Gentleman's Government introduced.
244
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made an eloquent, formidable and authoritative contribution describing enlargement as an historic opportunity that must not be missed. He argued wisely that the reform process that we are seeking to achieve in the convention on the future of Europe—on subsidiarity, the role of national Parliaments and the key issue of European Council reform—is absolutely critical to establishing intergovernmental control of the European agenda. That is what the reforms are about, and they include a proposal for an elected president of the European Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made key and important points about the role of national Parliaments. She informed the House that she is the chair of the working group on national Parliaments in the convention on the future of Europe, and that is an important recognition of the key role that she plays.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool made a key point about Europe's future global role and its potential as a force for progressive internationalism on the world stage. I agree with him that it is punching below its weight, and it needs to punch at its full weight. It needs to be in partnership with the US, but as a progressive force that stands its ground on issues such as Kyoto and opening up world trade to poor countries. That is Europe's mission as a force for good in the world, and that requires a strong common foreign policy. My right hon. Friend made that point very well.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said that there was no Government debate on the future of Europe. I have done my best to stir up apathy in six visits to the nations and regions of Britain. I have tried to carry the debate to the grass roots and to generate discussion at a much more local level. That has been quite successful, but I would not make exaggerated claims about the visits. I intend to visit the rest of the regions of Britain. There is a website seeking to involve people and everyone can contribute to another one about the convention on the future of Europe.[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Devizes is inviting me to his constituency, I shall give the invitation the serious consideration that it deserves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston is doing an excellent job on the convention on the future of Europe and is an excellent representative of this Parliament. She is extremely influential and that should reassure us about the outcome.
I sort of enjoy working in the convention with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), some of the time. He asked the specific question whether it was the Government's policy that the charter of fundamental rights should become legally binding. The Government's policy remains that the charter should not create new legal rights. That is imperative. The horizontal provisions negotiated by Lord Goldsmith in the convention on the charter state, in article 51:
"This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties."
The right hon. Gentleman may have found, in talking to fellow members of the convention, that the people who say that it is a great idea to have a charter of rights do not seriously appreciate what the implications would be if it

245
were incorporated wholesale in the treaty. I agree with him about that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it absolutely clear that we shall not do that and that we shall ensure that the debate is approached in a rational fashion. For example, I pointed out to German representatives that their ban on strikes for essential workers could be overridden if the charter were imported wholesale in the treaty. They had not been aware of that point. There is a sense that people want a charter of motherhood and apple pie at one level, but are not willing to recognise what full incorporation would signify.
Mr. Spring: We warned at the time of the Nice treaty that it would have an application in terms of our law. That view was confirmed by the Commission at the time. I remind the Minister that I tabled a question about how the charter had been cited in the European Court of Justice and in the Advocate General's opinions or judge's decisions. The Minister replied:
"Providing the full list would incur disproportionate cost"—[Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1000W.]
However, he then cited a number of instances when the charter had been mentioned. The idea that it has no relevance to judicial processes now and in the future in this country is absurd.
Peter Hain: There is a good answer to that. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware of it. If he wants me to spell it out again in detail in writing, I will happily do so.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Wells that we need a reverse gear as well as a forward gear. Indeed, part of the debate is about how we build that in to any new settlement to come out of the convention. In respect of the Irish referendum, he well knows that the Government of Ireland have asked for assurances about Irish neutrality in the event of the Nice treaty coming into force. They anticipate that the Seville Council will give those assurances, and I hope that that will enable the people of Ireland to vote yes in a second referendum. As strong pro-Europeans who have done very well out of their membership of the EU, they will not, I am sure, want to deny the benefits that they have had to other countries who wish to join.
The hon. Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) spoke with their usual conviction on European matters. I like the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), and he speaks with eloquence, but he gave his usual Scottish nationalist rant on Europe. He did not say anything about the substance of the issues; he just peddles the same old stuff. It was the usual whinge.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong on one thing. Well, he was wrong on virtually every point, but I only want to correct one thing that he said. Welsh representation in Brussels has not been closed down. The National Assembly for Wales has withdrawn from a private body with a few officers. It now wants to establish a proper office and representation, as the Scottish Executive have done. That is what has happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke authoritatively on the subject. I am always slightly nervous when one of my predecessors
246
speaks and I am expected to reply, because they probably know more than I do about Europe, especially my hon. Friend, as he was in office twice as long as I have been. I can assure him that we will continue the reform agenda.
I am supportive of his views on child abduction. I think that the Catherine Meyer case is a disgrace. Like my hon. Friend, I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who has an honourable campaigning record on that matter. On enlargement, we think that all 10 countries will come in on time. They are making enormous progress. Bulgaria's progress in signing off 20 chapters has surpassed expectations and is impressive.
The Prime Minister's joint letter with the German Chancellor sets out about 10 to 15 separate ideas, but I suppose that that depends on how they are defined; perhaps there are 20 if we look at them differently. They are all on the table for Seville. We will have to see how the discussion goes. All but two of the ideas are fairly certain. So that is another British agenda that we expect to get adopted in Seville.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made a convincing speech on the euro, reminding the House that it has been an incredible success. Portugal has benefited from it. My hon. Friend answered many of the points raised from a position of principle by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. Davidson), although I do not disagree with them for doing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) also successfully rebutted their arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South made an important point when he reminded the House that, as part of the enlargement accession process, the 10 countries that are expected to join in 2004 will be on an automatic ticket into the euro. After the anticipated Swedish referendum early next year and the subsequent Danish referendum, we could be the only country outside the single currency if the policies of the Tories' dogmatic opposition are followed. They need to bear that position of isolation in mind.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) made a series of points about European aid and development assistance. There are imperfections, as the Secretary of State for International Development has forcefully explained. However, I find a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's position. This Government have increased overseas aid and development assistance by 40 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. MacShane: Forty-five per cent.
Peter Hain: My hon. Friend adds another 5 per cent. Those increases are occurring after years of cuts by the Tories, who ratted on their obligations to the poor of the world. The European Union has its imperfections, and the Government are the first to criticise them, but in the World Trade Organisation it is the EU that has led the drive for a new trade round that will provide favourable terms of trade for the poor countries of the world, especially in Africa. I do not understand how the hon. Member for Billericay can argue his position.
Mr. Baron: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: I cannot, I am afraid. I am trying to reply to all hon. Members who have spoken.

247
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made a series of valid points. I pay tribute to his work as a country liaison Member with Hungary and to his work on enlargement, which is very valuable.
The issues that we are dealing with in Seville—including asylum and immigration and Council reform—throw into sharp relief the difference between the Government's approach to Europe and the Opposition's approach. It is the difference between practical engagement to deliver what the British people want and a dogmatic anti-Europeanism that would mean turning our backs on European action even when it is clearly in our interest.
Let us take asylum and immigration. People throughout Europe want a fair deal for genuine refugees and, I remind the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, an anti-racist policy. This Government are delivering that. People want managed economic migration to fill gaps in our labour markets, and a tough approach to illegal immigration and the criminality behind much of it. A great deal of that is for national Governments to tackle domestically, but European action can and does add value.
A common asylum policy will ensure common minimum standards for the treatment of asylum seekers and will head off a self-defeating race to the bottom by member states seeking to make themselves the least attractive to asylum seekers, even the genuine ones. It will prevent asylum shopping and make those member states that asylum seekers first enter, or pass through, take responsibility for them, rather than allowing them to shovel the problem on to others.
Working together to strengthen weak points on the EU's external border will help to prevent problems like Sangatte from occurring down the line. It is not enough to wait until people are just across the channel. To be effective, we have to deal with the illegal movement of people earlier in the chain. We must use Europe's collective weight in our relations with third countries to tackle the root causes of mass migration at source and to encourage them to accept the return of failed asylum seekers.
All those actions contribute to results that the British people want. They all add value to domestic action. They are all being driven by this Government in Europe, in partnership with others. The Tories are against European competence in this area, preferring dogma to a practical response to people's concerns. Our Government operate a policy that maintains our own frontier controls but also engages with our European partners in dealing with
248
asylum and immigration. The previous Conservative Government wanted nothing to do with the latter and could not even achieve guarantees on the former.
The Opposition say that they want a Europe of nation states. How do they go about achieving that? By peddling the myth of a superstate even though that is yesterday's news, and by saying that they will renegotiate the treaty to restore the veto and extensively repatriate powers to Britain. That is not practical politics. It does not have the remotest chance of being agreed. In the unlikely event that the Opposition ever got into a position to negotiate on this, what would they do when they failed—meekly accept defeat or withdraw from the EU? The latter is the real agenda among many of their Back Benchers.
We also want a Europe of nation states, but a very different one. We want a Europe in which nation states act nationally when their goals can best be achieved in that way, but work together—sometimes by co-operating, sometimes by pooling sovereignty—when it is in their collective interest to do so. The other difference is that we are doing something about it. The Council reform process that will begin at Seville is designed to ensure that Heads of Governments are setting the agenda in Europe and that Ministers in those Governments are transparently and effectively delivering on that agenda. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, the agenda is being set not by bureaucrats but by politicians whom people elect to be in charge.
After Seville, we will be taking that and other aspects of the future of Europe agenda forward, in the convention and elsewhere. That will provide further opportunities to embed our vision of a Europe of nation states; first, by strengthening the arrangements for the presidency of the Council; secondly, by strengthening subsidiarity, the principle that Europe acts only where member states cannot adequately achieve a policy objective on their own; thirdly, by strengthening the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, perhaps by making them guardians of subsidiarity; and fourthly, by embedding more deeply the practice that when the EU needs to act, it does so as lightly as possible.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That the Court of Protection (Enduring Powers of Attorney) (Amendment) Rules 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 832) and Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 833) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Regional Foods Registration
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
10 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the debate has been prompted by the situation of the Arbroath smokie.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be on level communication this evening. I am aware of his intention of raising the matter of the Arbroath smokie, and I sampled that delicacy this afternoon in order to be properly prepared for the debate.
Mr. Weir: I am delighted to hear that the Minister has sampled that delicacy. I brought down with me a pair of Arbroath smokies bought from E and O Fish in Arbroath on Sunday afternoon, so I could have presented them to him had he not done that. My Chief Whip tells me that that might constitute a bribe, but he says that he will come round and help me finish them off. We shall see.
As I am sure the Minister and all other hon. Members are aware, the Arbroath smokie is a smoked haddock, a delicacy that has been produced in my home town for centuries. Indeed, it is believed to have been invented by the monks at Arbroath abbey, even before the abbey hosted the signing of the first declaration of Scottish independence.
The Minister also knows that the fishing industry, and with it the fish processing industry, have been going through difficult times in recent years, owing to the scarcity of fish in general and haddock in particular. That has hit the Arbroath smokie industry particularly hard. For a time last year, the main producer of Arbroath smokies ceased production. It is now reported that there has been a substantial increase in the haddock catch with the new quotas, and the haddock catch landed at Arbroath has risen from 40 to 300 boxes a week. That is the first time that that has happened in many a long year, and it is a good sign.
Now is the perfect time for the industry to expand and seek new markets—but if it is to do so, the protection by registration of the name is essential. The Minister will know that most of the producers in the town are small-scale family businesses that rely for their business on the worldwide reputation of the smokie. That has been under threat in recent years, as fish processors in other parts of the UK have tried to use the name of the Arbroath smokie to sell their own much inferior products.
Such a situation can be disastrous for any product that relies on its name and reputation. If the market gets contaminated by inferior products, the name and reputation can be irreparably damaged. Because of that, my local authority, Angus council, is spearheading a campaign to guarantee and protect the good name of the Arbroath smokie, by joining forces with fish processors in the town to apply for the Arbroath Smokie name to be registered under the European protected geographical indications scheme.
That is rather a mouthful, but as the Minister knows, it is one of three designations that can be sought under European legislation, the others being the protection of
250
designated origin, whereby the product must by produced, processed and prepared in a specified geographical area, and the certificate of specific character, where the name must be specific in itself or express the specific character of the foodstuff.
Under the protection of geographical indications scheme, the product must be produced, processed or prepared in the geographical area, which is obviously the case with a smoked fish delicacy such as the Arbroath smokie. Perhaps the most famous example of a food with such a designation is Parma ham. It is a scandal that such an inferior product has the designation, while the great Arbroath smokie has not yet achieved it. The producers of Parma ham jealously guard its name. The pig producers must adhere to strict protocols and standards, and the ham must be prepared and sliced in or around Parma. Indeed, the producers have taken large supermarket chains and others to court to try to ensure the quality and reputation of their ham.
However, the problem with the registration process is that it is long, cumbersome and expensive. A protection of geographical indications—PGI—designation involves a number of stages, as the Minister will no doubt be aware, and must include information about the method of production, including the origin, nature and characteristics of the raw material. In the case of a traditional delicacy such as the Arbroath smokie, making the application is an arduous task. Angus council engaged Bob Spink, local smokie expert and former director of Arbroath fish processing company R. R. Spink and Sons, to draft the application. Indeed, anyone who knows Arbroath will know that the name of Spink is synonymous with fishing.
After the application has been drafted, it must pass through three stages. It must go to the Environment and Rural Development Department of the Scottish Executive, the Minister's own Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and then the European Commission. That is a lengthy process; I understand that it can take up to 18 months. Once the application reaches the European Commission, I understand that it takes six months to consider it before issuing its decision. If the applicant is successful, as I am sure the Arbroath smokie application will be, details of the product are published in the Official Journal of the European Commission.
However, there is then a further period of six months to allow other members of the European Union and EU producers to express objections. If no objections are received, I understand that the product will then become registered and details will once again be published in the Official Journal. If objections are received, however, there can be a further three-month period to allow the EU states involved to have bilateral discussions to solve the problem. It would be an interesting seminar or summit at which European nations met to discuss the Arbroath smokie. I am sure that it will not come to that, but if it does, and the issue remains unresolved, the final decision will be taken by the European Union regulatory committee.
I have described the process in some detail to illustrate the fact that it can be expensive. The costs of drafting, submitting and pursuing an application and of the required expertise would be beyond the means of most small-scale producers. Indeed, I asked the Minister's Department a parliamentary question about the average cost to it of such an application. The answer referred to some £15,000 in staff costs alone. That is how much it will cost that

251
Department, let alone the applicants themselves. No small amount is involved, and therein lies the problem with the process: it is almost impossible for a small-scale producer to afford the cost of registering a product.
In the case of the Arbroath smokie, as I said, most producers are small scale and would be unable to meet the cost on their own. They can proceed only because of the support of Angus council. That should not be the case; we should be able to register our traditional products much more easily. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is this: will he investigate whether it would be possible to reduce the cost of making such applications, and whether the Government could consider helping to fund them to ensure that more go forward?
Given the complexity and costs of the process, it is perhaps hardly surprising that producers in Scotland—and, indeed, the whole of the UK—are far behind in registering products. Again, I raised the matter in a written question to the Minister's Department. I was told that to date, only five products from Scotland and 31 from the UK as a whole had been registered. As well as the Arbroath smokie, I understand that only two other Scottish products are currently going through the process: Aberdeen Angus beef, which again comes from my constituency and neighbouring ones—
Alun Michael: As anybody reading the record might be misled, I should say that I understand that seven applications have been approved from Scotland out of the 31 applications made from the UK as a whole. As a Welshman, I was rather disappointed to see that there were no Welsh applications, although I believe that Welsh beef and lamb—both excellent products—are on the cards.
Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I had originally written that there were seven approved applications, as that was my understanding, but the parliamentary answer that I received said that there had been five.
Pete Wishart: As my hon. Friend is going to Wales, may I also take him across the constituency boundary to the part of Angus that I represent? As a son of Angus, he will no doubt be aware of the excellent Forfar bridie, which in my opinion is the finest meat-based product—I suppose the English would call it a pasty—in the whole United Kingdom. Beyond that, Strathmore, which has the most intensive berry production in the United Kingdom, produces the best strawberries and raspberries in the UK, in my opinion. Does my hon. Friend agree that registration of those regional foods could do a lot to encourage tourism to those areas? We could use the excellence, exclusivity and greatness of traditional foods to promote Angus, Strathmore and the rest of the Tayside area.
Mr. Weir: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. which I was going to come to later. Many European areas have managed to get a good industry going with local foods, and to tie that into their tourism industry. We need to do that in Scotland to a much greater extent.
The only two products currently going through the registration process are Aberdeen Angus beef and Scottish farmed salmon. It is instructive to realise that the products
252
registered to date include Scotch beef and lamb and Orkney and Shetland lamb, which are backed by strong producer organisations, although those industries have not been without their troubles in recent years. Comparing the number of registrations from Scotland and the UK—I am, as I said, sad to learn that there are none from Wales—with those from continental Europe, we see that in France 127 products have been registered, in Italy 117, and even 88 in Greece. Registered European products include wine from Italy and champagne from France—again, products far inferior to the great Arbroath smokie. It is obviously important for small producers to register a food, and the reasons for doing so are becoming more urgent in a difficult marketplace.
Registration protects a product from cheap imitations and provides an excellent marketing opportunity both for products aimed at new markets and for tourism, as I have mentioned. Would champagne be so successful if it was just another fizzy wine? Registration protects the quality of the product and thus its respectability and the market for it. In an age of mass production, people who seek to create quality products must more and more seek niche markets to sell their wares. Scotland has a worldwide reputation for quality and for its environment, and that reputation means a lot.
Furthermore, registration means that inferior products produced elsewhere cannot be passed off as local products, as has happened in the past to the smokie industry among others. Indeed, when Delia Smith recently discovered the Arbroath smokie, there was a rush, albeit short-lived, on the product—but many people who were buying "Arbroath smokies" were probably buying fish that had never smelled the fresh air of Arbroath harbour.
Many rural and remote areas are suffering badly from the downturn in traditional industries. Sadly. Arbroath's once great fishing industry is almost a distant memory—although as I said earlier, there is currently an upturn, but that may turn out to be an Indian summer. Proposals have been submitted to turn part of the Arbroath harbour area into a tourist attraction—again, smokies could form part of that. Perhaps there will be no Smokieworld, but we have hope for the future.
Welcome as those developments are, they do not compensate for the loss of fishing jobs in the past few decades. Fish processing continues in a fairly substantial way, although with small-scale producers in Arbroath, and has a future if fish stocks are maintained. There was a welcome increase in them this year as a result of the quotas negotiated by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in Brussels. However, storm clouds appear to he gathering on the horizon again. The fish-processing industry sometimes lives on the edge, as was recently demonstrated by the closures in north-east Scotland.
To survive, traditional industries must protect the things that make them unique; the Arbroath smokie is an example, as is the Forfar bridie, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) mentioned. To do so, however, they must seek the protection of their identity, which would allow them to develop a niche market and sell a reliable quality product. We are told that food producers must seek that quality niche market, and many are striving to do so.

253
However, to secure protection for the future they must receive European registration. It is imperative that the Government give all necessary assistance to such applications, especially to small-scale producers, who may be wiped out if they have been successful in establishing a market only for it to be swamped by mass producers cashing in.
The registration system has been taken up with gusto across continental Europe, as is shown by the figures. I ask the Minister to do the same here and to offer help in achieving registration to all small-scale producers in Scotland. Wales and the rest of the UK. Many fine and unique products are produced in Scotland, and even in other parts of the UK; I confess to being a great fan of blue Stilton cheese.
10.15 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): It is a great pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), and I congratulate him on securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to hear about the joys of Arbroath smokies. The first thing that I did when I realised that I would be responding to the debate was to test the availability of Arbroath smokies in London. As the test proved positive, I tasted the product for myself this afternoon. I can therefore join him in recommending it to the hon. Members who have flooded into the Chamber to hear this important debate.
I want to get one or two statistical matters straight. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of successful registrations in Scotland. There are seven—Orkney beef, Orkney lamb, Scottish beef, Scottish lamb, Shetland lamb, Bonchester cheese and Teviotdale cheese. That list excludes those that are going through the process, such as the Arbroath smokie. On the comparison with other countries, although the hon. Gentleman is correct that the United Kingdom has some 31 successful registrations, France has 127 and Italy has 117, we are at the halfway point in the table, and many countries have not taken as much advantage of registration as has the UK.
Mr. Weir: My figures are taken from a parliamentary answer from his Department, which reads:
"No regional foods have been registered as protected food names in Angus"—
as yet, obviously. It continues:
"Five regional foods have been registered in Scotland, (and including these) 31 in the UK."—[official Report, 10 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 940W.]
Alun Michael: The point is that I can give the hon. Gentleman the accurate answer—there are the seven that I named. I do not know the reason for the disparity. Perhaps the figure that he was given is mistaken or has not kept pace with registrations.
What is interesting, apart from the fact that the United Kingdom is halfway up the table—and may move further if the information that I have been given today is correct—is the way in which registration is being used. Eleven products are from the south-west of England. That fits in well with the fact that the promotion of regional foods in the south-west, "Taste of the West", is particularly effective. It has succeeded in giving a profile
254
to the region and to the local foods of the region. I have been telling those in other regions of England that they should look at what has been achieved in the south-west to build on that for the future. We can learn lessons from each other.
Although there is growing interest in regional and local food, there is little public knowledge about the EU scheme for protecting food names, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it and to say a little about what we have been doing. The idea of registering a traditional regional food or drink remains something of an alien concept in the UK, and we need to ask why that is. Other member states—it is no accident that France and Italy are at the head of the list of registrations—have a long tradition of recognising the importance of regional food and drink in encouraging a vibrant rural economy. The French have a well-established system for registering protected food names, which is familiar to us from their cheeses and wines—appellation contrôlée. That explains why so many French products now benefit from the EU scheme that came into force in 1993, with the first products being registered in 1996.
Despite our position somewhere behind the starting line when the scheme was introduced, we are beginning to catch up. The first products registered under the scheme include Scottish beef, Scottish lamb and Orkney lamb and, moving south of the border, Newcastle brown and Stilton cheese. Both the latter have adherents in the House. They are all excellent products, which deserve protection. The 31 United Kingdom products that have been registered place us seventh in the EU league table.
In addition, there is the designation known as the "certificate of specific character". Such a product has to be produced on the basis of a traditional recipe. It has been little used so far, even in France. However, traditional farm-produced turkeys in the United Kingdom can make use of it. The market is growing because consumers appreciate the distinctive flavour that derives from the method of production and preparation. That is another commendable step forward.
Much more needs to be done. As we have heard, many other products are equally worth protecting. I hope that, in future, hon. Members from different regions of England as well as from Scotland and Wales will compete to tell the House, the country and the world about the excellence of their local products.
Why should we protect such products? What are we doing to encourage more registrations? It is not enough to register food names for the sake of it or for sentimental reasons. Consumers are showing an increasing interest in regional and traditional foods. As well as price, quality and accessibility, consumers look for authenticity and traceability. Products that fulfil those needs can therefore be marketed at a premium, thus benefiting farmers and secondary producers.
Time and again, we have said that it is important to find ways of getting the price that consumers are willing to pay back to primary producers and the communities from which the products originate. Once a protected food name is registered, consumers can be assured that it is authentic because registered products must be fully certified as conforming to a set specification by independent inspection bodies.

255
It is becoming easier for consumers to identify registered products thanks to the distinctive community logos that producers can use when labelling their products. Several UK products are using the logos and we are keen to encourage a greater take-up.
Let us consider ways in which to encourage more awareness of the scheme, which is voluntary and designed to promote new applications. In 1999, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food launched a campaign to raise the profile of our regional food heritage. It was aimed at food producers, retailers and consumers and tried to raise awareness of the EU scheme and highlight UK products that had already been protected or might be eligible for protection.
The campaign involved a major exhibition at the royal show and a series of regional seminars in England and Wales. They prompted a great deal of interest from producers and resulted in several new applications, some of which are with European Commission for consideration.
There is more to do and I am pleased that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials are working closely with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to attract more applications. As I said earlier, no Welsh applications have yet been approved but we are confident that that will happen. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have been working, through officials' joint activity, to use the European scheme. That is another example of the co-operation necessary to make devolution a success.
Close co-operation is also vital once an application has been submitted to us. That was much in evidence when we dealt with the Arbroath smokie application, and ensured that we were able to forward it to the Commission in Brussels without delay.
I want to say a little about the timetable to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Criticisms have been made of the scheme, which has been portrayed as slow and bureaucratic. However, let us consider our goal. The delay is partly due to the built-in timetable in EU legislation. The timetable is designed to protect the scheme's integrity and the long-term value of designation to consumers and producers. It is not simply a quick marketing ploy, but something that will add value in the long term to the product that he wants promoted on behalf of firms in his constituency.
The timetable also includes an opportunity for producers elsewhere in the EU to object to applications and enables our producers to object to a possible unfair designation from some country elsewhere in Europe. It is, therefore, right that the process should have a degree of time for thought and for objection to ensure that the integrity is protected, and that once a product is designated, it means something.
We try to make the process as painless as possible by guiding applicants through the process, advising them on completing their applications, and doing all that we can to ensure that there is no undue delay once an application is sent to the commission. The hon. Gentleman referred to costs, and was kind enough to inform us of the amount that it costs the Government to assist with the process. I should point out that no fee is charged to applicants. We are supporting this because it is good for business in the UK, and we are seeking to encourage small businesses as well as larger ones to take advantage of this facility.
256
The commission on the future of farming and food, led by Sir Donald Curry, recently recognised that one of the greatest opportunities for food producers to add value and retain a bigger slice of the retail price was to build on the public's increasing enthusiasm for local food or food with a clear regional provenance. The Curry report recommended that industry bodies, with the help of Food from Britain and the regional food groups, should do more to ensure that English producers take part in the protected food name scheme—the same would apply to Scottish and Welsh producers. We accept this recommendation, and DEFRA officials have been making information about the scheme available to the regional food groups and will work closely with them in the same way that they work closely with their colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Finally, it is worth noting that the scheme may not be suitable for all our regional food and drink products, either because those products do not meet the criteria for eligibility or because the producers themselves do not wish to register the products.
I shall close by saying something about our efforts to encourage regional food production more generally and to help producers find outlets for their products. One of the pleasures of this job is spending time in the regions of England, and eating regional and locally grown products with people whom I meet and entertain has brought home to me how the quality and presentation of food in the United Kingdom has improved in recent years.
We have made provision under the England rural development programme for grants-related activities such as the establishment of farmers' markets, the development of regional or local branding of foodstuffs, the marketing of organic products, and the formation of collaborative groups to market quality products. All of these are important. The Countryside Agency's "Eat the View" campaign seeks to achieve more favourable market conditions for local products that support sustainable land management. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a link between food and attracting tourists to an area. That is a good connection that we should make the most of.
Food from Britain, another of the bodies to which we grant aid, has been encouraging supermarkets to stock local produce, with some success. It also supports a network of regional food groups which provide trade development services to regional and speciality food producers.
At a more strategic level, it is one of the benefits of the new Department that it brings more closely together the staff dealing with a wide range of food, environmental and sustainability issues. This is very much in our minds as we draw up our response to the Curry report's recommendations relating to regional and local food, with the aim of developing a strategic approach to the promotion of regional foods and greater co-ordination between bodies with an interest in this work.
At the end of the day, there are models that work, and there is an opportunity for registration in this community scheme. It is by bringing those together and ensuring that people understand what is being done that we can help the British food industry not only to succeed for itself but to help the work of the British tourist industry and other industries at national, regional and local level. The encouragement by the Prince of Wales to supermarkets to consider regional and local products is also beneficial.

257
There is also encouragement for us to look across boundaries so that we appreciate products from elsewhere. Those of us from Wales, for example, might appreciate the products of Scotland and the regions of England, and so on. We have a great deal to gain from each other if we value each other's products and encourage them to
258
become better known not only throughout the country, but throughout Europe and the world. I hope that, like the hon. Gentleman, many Members will take the opportunity to publicise products from their area, and to encourage producers in their constituencies to make use of this facility.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

China
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Ben Chapman: I am delighted to have secured this debate. It is opportune that we should have it now, because only three months ago we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic links with China at ambassadorial level, and in a few days' time we will have reached the fifth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China. I asked the Library when the House had last discussed our bilateral relations with China, but it was unable to find an example of such a debate. It is vital that we air the subject thoroughly.
The debate is opportune also because many hon. Members present today have just returned from a visit to China. For propriety, I should declare that our air fares were met with commercial assistance and that our transport and hospitality costs while in China were met by our interlocutors there, the National People's Congress, the provincial people's congresses and the municipal people's congresses. Many hon. Members who went on the visit were keen to be present for this debate, but some are committed to attending other Select Committee meetings and visits, or have similar engagements. For example, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has asked me to express his apologies, as he is with his Select Committee in Warsaw.
The all-party group on China, which I chair, is one of the largest such groups. We think it important that as many Members of Parliament as possible, including Members of the House of Lords, take an interest in China and are able to speak about it with authority within the Palace of Westminster and outside it. It is important also, given the rate of change in China, that regular visits take place, not least because change is a constant there, and we need to be current. It is helpful to have the opportunity to bring the House up to date on matters as I and my colleagues found them.
In my mind's eye, I see a bilateral relationship as a pie chart. The pieces of the pie relate to commercial relations, civic relations, academic and educational relations, sporting relations, governmental relations and so on. The piece that relates to parliamentary relations is relatively thin, but it is important, especially for political and democratic development. My colleagues in the China group attach some importance to maintaining the size of the slice of pie and of the group itself—and, indeed, to developing both.
We regularly receive visitors from China. As recently as yesterday, I met the deputy chairman of the standing committee of the provincial people's congress of Guangdong; and a few weeks ago I and my colleagues met Li Ruihuan, the chairman of the Chinese People's political consultative conference. We have also tried to
2WH
encourage parliamentarians to learn Mandarin and to facilitate that learning, and we have been instrumental in bringing a clerk from the National People's Congress for training and experience in the Palace of Westminster. However, like other groups, we are seriously limited by an absence of resources. Funding has been difficult, and may be complicated and restricted by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, although we are now trying to tackle the problem.
Our debate is particularly important now, because although our bilateral relationship with China is in excellent shape, especially following the successful hand over of Hong Kong, it is still in need of widening and deepening. In a sense, it has been a truly bilateral relationship for five years only. Prior to that, for 150 years it was a trilateral relationship in some respects, and our dealings, especially in more recent historic terms, were conducted against the background of, and in relation to, Hong Kong. There is still much to be done, especially given our joint permanent membership of the Security Council. I may be over-ambitious, but I think that in the light of our historical and current relationship and our different spheres of influence there is unexploited scope for double-header initiatives with the People's Republic of China.
Given our history, remarkable progress has been made. We enjoy close collaboration on the governmental front, and that has been particularly so recently in relation to international coalition against terrorism. Government links are many and varied, and high-level exchanges are frequent, which is to be greatly welcomed. That was demonstrably true of the Deputy Prime Minister's recent visit to China, against the background of the crucial global challenges of the environment in general and the Kyoto agreement in particular. It was also true of Vice-President Hu Jintao's visit to the UK in October last year.
However, not everything in the garden is rosy. Just as the Chinese do not see all aspects of the UK as perfection, there are some aspects of China's affairs that we find imperfect. Human rights remain a serious concern, and the all-party group never fails to raise the issue on its visits to China and with Chinese visitors to the UK. We recognise, however, that the colossus that is China is on a continuum that will take it from economic reform through political reform to social and civil reform. Like much else in China, that process is probably inevitable, and the all-party group has a small role to play in encouraging China along the line of that continuum—however slowly—through constant dialogue.
It is readily acknowledged that the opening-up and reform of China have led to massive improvements in living standards and in the enjoyment of economic and social rights, but it is fair to say that they have not been matched by similar improvements in social and political rights. The continued detention and harassment of democracy activists and religious practitioners run contrary to international human rights norms, as do the excessive use of the death penalty, the continued use of detention without trial and some aspects of the situation in Tibet and Xingjiang. Religious beliefs, freedom of association and of expression and the media are routinely restricted. The crackdown on activists in the China Democracy party and the Falun Gong continues,

3WH
and Falun Gong leaders have been handed harsh sentences. I and, I think, the Government have no particular view on the Falun Gong, but we are concerned about human rights abuses, wherever they occur.
That said, the human rights dialogue is continuing and. I think, progressing at national and European Union level. A round of bilateral exchanges concluded just before we went to Beijing. The Chinese have ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and have signed the covenant on civil and political rights, but not ratified it. We continue to express our hope that they will do so, and to make clear our concerns about the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans.
We applaud the work that the British Council and the Great Britain China Centre have done within that human rights dialogue on promoting the rule of law, on strengthening civil society and on many other issues. I recognise, however, that the maintenance of social stability will be the predominant requirement as the Chinese move forward, and that both social and economic development will inevitably have Chinese characteristics.
For many years, China has been regarded as potentially the largest market in the world. The realisation of that potential has been a long time coming, but the fact remains that economic developments have been remarkable for China's 1.25 billion people—they currently make up one fifth of the world's population, and the figure is growing. Since Deng Xiaoping adopted the open-door policy in 1978, the economy has grown by almost 10 per cent. per annum. Shanghai is a new "Metropolis", and it is said that three quarters of the world's construction cranes can be found there. That is certainly apocryphal, but impressionistically it could be true. I did not count them, but there appeared to be hundreds, if not thousands, of high-rise blocks. Futuristic buildings of high quality and architectural design stand starkly and modernistically alongside the traditional architecture of the Bund. To walk down Nanjing road and see its commercial activity and feel its buzz is an energising experience. Shanghai had a gross domestic product of $60 billion in 2001, and its foreign trade expands by 20 per cent. a year. Many major projects are under way, such as the deep-water port at Yangshan island, which I think will carry as much traffic as the port of Hong Kong.
It is true, however, that in Shanghai and elsewhere too many Chinese still harbour an old-fashioned view of the United Kingdom. Believe it or not, London is still thought of as foggy. That Dickensian view is held partly I suppose because of the Chinese liking for British classics. It is thus opportune that another effort is being made to dispel that image, and to promote an innovative and technologically advanced Britain through the Leading Edge events in Shanghai in October.
Some years ago when I served in the British embassy in Beijing, I was shown plans of a new futuristic area of the city—virtually a city in itself—called Pudong, which was to have its own financial centre, international airport, high-tech zone, industrial areas and so on. I was dubious about its achievability, but it has now been built and is massively impressive. I no longer harbour any doubt about China's ability or commitment to
4WH
developing the western regions. Indeed, I recognise that as another inevitability, and we saw a little of it when we visited Xi'an.
In that context, it is appropriate that the policies of and assistance from the Department for International Development should focus in China on poverty alleviation, mainly in the western provinces where the majority of the poor are located. However, the western provinces are also important commercially. Development in that region will provide massive opportunities for exporters and investors. We need to facilitate such development for UK exporters and investors.
It is commendable that in recent years our exports to China have grown massively, no doubt assisted by the China-Britain Business Council and its predecessors. In the 1990s, our exports quadrupled. It is quite coincidental that my period as commercial councillor in Beijing promoting our trade there ended in the 1980s, when our exports were sadly rather flat. After my time, they took off dramatically. If we include direct exports alongside exports via Hong Kong. the figure for 2001 was £2.4 billion.
That said, the direct visible trade deficit grew from £32 million when I was there to £4.25 billion by 2001. In other words, Chinese exports to the UK have massively outstripped our exports to China. There is obviously some ground to be made up, as there is in relation to our European competitors. For example, Germany's direct trade exports were two and half times those of the UK a couple of years ago, and French exports were 50 per cent. higher.
UK capabilities in telecommunications, technology for the supply of liquefied natural gas, transportation, chemical production, power generation, agriculture and food processing, among other things. mix well with Chinese priorities. One wonders whether, for many, China is still too far, too big and too difficult. We need to develop measured ways to attract, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises to the market, and perhaps more closely consider piggy-backing their export efforts on to those of larger firms, not least those that deal with oil and related activities and have massive investments in China.
China's entry to the World Trade Organisation will also provide opportunities for UK firms, which colleagues from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry are examining as I speak. One understands China's reluctance to expose a fledgling financial services sector to severe competition too early, but we need to press for services such as banking, insurance and fund management, among other areas in which we have particular expertise, if we are to have a better share of and better opportunities in the Chinese market. Our relationship on the environmental front may also allow us to promote our expertise in environmental and pollution control equipment and environmental consultancy. By the same token, the market in consumer goods, health care, education and training will open up much further, not least in the western provinces.
It is also inevitable that, as with the Asian tigers, China will need to invest overseas, as it is already doing to a certain extent. In purchasing power parity terms, it is already the world's second-largest economy. It will, as night follows day and for a variety of sound economic

5WH
reasons, need to move its investment overseas as well as inland. Inward investment is a long process, and it is right that Invest UK is targeting the market.
Although our cumulative figures make the UK the sixth largest investor in China and the leading EU investor, much of that is represented by industrial giants. Without wishing to encourage the export of jobs, we still need to encourage British companies to consider making their own investment in China as a basis for tackling the market in the region. The upcoming Beijing Olympic games of 2008 will provide significant commercial opportunities, and we welcome the attention that Trade Partners UK is paying to that. The Beijing municipality is investing $24 billion in urban infrastructure and facilities for the games.
We did not visit Hong Kong, so I shall restrict my remarks on that region, but we intend to visit it later this year. Suffice it to say that the Chinese seem to me and, I think, to the group to have honoured the terms of the joint declaration to the letter. The Special Administrative Region arrangements are working, as far as one can see, absolutely as intended. As a result, the interactions between China and Hong Kong are now on an even more massive scale than before.
The economy of Hong Kong has seen difficult times, as have other economies of that region and elsewhere, but it is weathering the storm and showing its perpetually remarkable ability to adapt. It remains, of course, an important market for the United Kingdom, and Britain remains its leading foreign investor.
The system of governance of Hong Kong is changing, and progress is being made towards universal suffrage. The Chief Executive has announced his intention to introduce "Ministers" from outside the civil service, who will be politically appointed and answerable to him for the duration of his political tenure. Although those Ministers will take full political responsibility for the success or failure of their policies, personally speaking, I wonder whether that measure is sufficiently radical or forward-looking to achieve what are regarded as normal forms of governance or the process towards democratisation, which is designed to benefit the people of Hong Kong, for whom we have an enduring moral and political responsibility because of our residual responsibilities. I also wonder whether the Chief Executive's measure is forward-looking enough for the economy of Hong Kong.
It is striking that there are now 20,000 Chinese students in the United Kingdom. It is equally striking that most of them are privately funded and that the Chevening scholarship programme for China is the largest in the world.
I have ranged generally, sometimes superficially, over several issues, but our bilateral relations are necessarily wide and diverse. They include, for example, important non-governmental connections through the UK-China Forum, which will meet in Beijing next year.
China is vastly important as a global player and in relation to the United Kingdom. The nation seems to recognise increasingly an external role, as it did with its leadership during the Asian economic crisis and as it has done in relation to the current India-Pakistan dispute. It showed such leadership by hosting the APEC summit for the first time last year, by establishing a peacekeeping affairs office and by indicating its
6WH
willingness to play a part in UN peacekeeping operations. It will do so at a different level as more and more students and tourists travel overseas. Large numbers are already doing so.
China is a colossus of geo-political importance. It is a colossus in its commercial, economic and industrial development, and in its ability to affect the world for good or ill, be it in relation to the environment or to world stability. It is also a colossus by virtue of its scale—31 provinces or autonomous regions, each the size of a European country. It is twice the size of western Europe and stretches from the tropics to the sub-Arctic. Although there are difficult economic and political changes ahead, because of the scale and complexity of matters Chinese, China provides us with opportunities on a wide front. With major changes in the Chinese hierarchy due in autumn this year and spring next year, I hope very much that we can utilise our bilateral relations to good effect in terms of the people of both nations and global well-being.
9.50 am
Tony Baldry: Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and to the Minister for the fact that I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate, but I am chairing a meeting of the International Development Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), the excellent chairman of the all-party group on China, is to be congratulated on securing this debate. If the millennium development goals for 2015 are to be met, it will be largely because of the Herculean efforts that have been made by China to lift her people out of poverty. The past five years have probably been the most momentous for relations between China and the UK.
As the hon. Member for Wirral, South said, the hand over of Hong Kong, about five years ago, was much more successful than most people had expected. The following year, the Chinese Prime Minister visited the UK, and our Prime Minister visited China. In 1999, there was the extremely successful state visit of the President of China, the first such state visit ever. Those visits have been followed by others, such as that of the Vice-President last year, and the chairman of the People's consultative committee this year. Against that background, there has also been a substantial increase in bilateral trade. The Chinese ambassador said only yesterday that there were only about 8,000 Chinese students studying in the UK when he visited this country five years ago, whereas there are now about 40,000. Our relations with China have been strengthened considerably during that period.
As one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on China, I want to reinforce something that the hon. Member for Wirral, South said on a parliamentary housekeeping point. The British-American parliamentary group receives public funding, and other groups in the House can secure overseas visits either through the Inter-Parliamentary Union or, for Commonwealth countries, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We are often very fortunate in being welcomed by other countries, as happened recently when the National People's Congress entertained Members of the House of Commons. I did not go on that visit, but I have recently been to China on

7WH
my own account. However, the lack of budgetary assistance makes it difficult for us to invite representatives of other countries here. If relations between Parliaments are to be thickened, a two-way dialogue is required.
Some people in the private sector are willing to support the work of the all-party group on China, which they regard as important. An unintended consequence of the legislation on donations to political parties has been to muck that up. If a public company in the UK wishes to give money to the all-party group on China for the purpose of exchanges between parliamentarians, it has to obtain the approval of its shareholders at an annual general meeting. Companies are not unwilling to do that, nor have they anything to hide, but it is an additional imposition. The hon. Member for Wirral, South and I can talk to the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, about the matter, but I suspect that he is constrained by the law.
We need to consider whether the House could set up a trust fund or other mechanism to facilitate parliamentary exchanges without public companies having to go through the brouhaha of resolutions at their annual general meetings to enable them to give modest sums. Otherwise, it will be difficult to develop and thicken the relations that are necessary between this Parliament and the National People's Congress in China, which I am sure we all want to do. China is a large and increasingly important country. It is in all our interests to get to know how Chinese parliamentarians think and how they view issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it is unusual to give way to the Minister. Parliament voted recently to allow all hon. Members to make three visits to European countries, not on matters to do with the Government. Speaking as a Member of Parliament and not as a Minister, I would have no problem with a resolution to allow one trip a year further abroad to enable hon. Members to make longer range visits, which are, I agree, so important.
Tony Baldry: That is a constructive comment, and I endorse it. It is difficult for us to invite parliamentarians to Westminster as our guests to discuss matters such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral, South in relation to human rights. That cannot be done in headlines; it requires a degree of subtlety and should progress over a period of time when we have established some trust and got to know people. It is important to keep dialogue going in both directions.
Bilateral trade with China has doubled over recent years. However, there is still enormous potential for small and medium-sized businesses. The China-Britain Business Council does brilliant work, and is much to be congratulated. So, too, do many British trade partners. The export of the year award was made at the lunch to celebrate the Chinese new year, and I was struck by the fact that it has often been a matter of chance that the winner has been established in China. I suspect that much more needs to be done to give small and medium-sized businesses the confidence to get to grips with the
8WH
Chinese market. Those that do, and persevere, find openings for specialist niche companies, but they need help.
With regard to culture and language, China is an increasingly important player on the world stage, but practically no schools in the UK offer Mandarin as a subject. It is not an impossible subject; my daughter has just completed a GCSE in Mandarin and hopes to go to China for her gap year to teach English. So it is possible, although she was fortunate in being at a school that offered Mandarin. For her and others who study the language, it is essential to understand that a culture can have completely different values, but that it is none the less important for that. Having some understanding of those cultural values is extremely important for people in our schools if they are not to see China in terms of historic stereotypes. We should consider how we in the UK can ensure that we have a better understanding of Chinese culture, history and language, provide greater opportunities for youngsters in our schools and enable those who may like to do so to study Mandarin.
Those were my three brief points. The first concerned how we can improve relations between the UK Parliament and the National People's Congress; the second, how we can help small and medium-sized businesses to take greater advantage of the ever-growing Chinese market; and the third what we can do to ensure a better understanding in our schools of Chinese culture and greater opportunities for children to learn Mandarin.
9.59 am
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I should like to follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). I, too, was a member of the all-party group that went to China, which was an enormously impressive experience.
I shall respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury about the cultural side of the visit. Although much of the business and the constant string of meetings that we conducted in China could be tiresome, to put it mildly, the highlight of our trip came when we visited the Great Wall of China. It took more than 2,000 years for the fabled wall to be built, which gave me a marvellous reference point for continuity within the Chinese polity and allowed me an insight into Chinese culture, which regards outsiders as "the other". The Chinese name for China is Zhongguo, which translates as "the middle kingdom" and suggests that the outer world continues to be regarded as something other.
During our trip, I perceived the Chinese Government as trying to break down those barriers and making conscious efforts to look outwards. There is no greater example of that than China's recent accession to the World Trade Organisation. Mr. Tong, the remarkable and erudite man who took China into that organisation, was our host for a large part of our visit. Not only did his erudition come across clearly, but it was obvious from his humour and use of demotic language that he was an internationalist in the true sense of the word. I do not suggest that he reflects the reality of the Chinese masses, however.
Let us consider what the Chinese have to deal with. Some 400 million Chinese live in great cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Xi'an. That is challenging

9WH
enough, but in addition 900 million peasants live in the countryside, in a very different world from those in the cities. The Chinese Government have to take that into account.
Like my hon. Friend, I was struck by the great strides being made internally on the economy and infrastructure. I smile to think of the M25 and all the problems associated with it, such as yesterday's breakdown, given that the Chinese have just built a fifth ring road around Beijing, which runs freely and puts the M25 to shame. When we took a 14-hour train ride from Beijing to Xi'an, I realised that it would be a good idea for such companies as Railtrack and Virgin to go and see how to run trains that arrive on time, are clean and provide excellent food. There is much to be learned from China.
I want to deal with the provisions in the United Kingdom for the Chinese language and for an understanding of Chinese culture and education. My hon. Friend referred to the stereotypical view of London as foggy. In fact, on a dank day in mid-winter, one can still be misled into thinking that that stereotype is true. However, we have our own stereotypical views of China and the Chinese. Their major cities are no different from major cities anywhere in the world: the young people wear the same style of clothes, have the same fashions, go to the same McDonalds hamburger joints and eat at Kentucky Fried Chicken. There is a great international cultural affinity at that level, although I make the distinction between the cities and the countryside.
There remains an ignorance of cultures on both sides, as the hon. Member for Banbury said. I was interested to hear that one of his daughters has been studying Mandarin, because one of my daughters is head of a language specialist school in Liverpool, which teaches Mandarin and is twinned with a school in Shanghai. Indeed, my old school in Liverpool—St. Edward's—is also a language specialist school. It teaches Mandarin and has a twinning arrangement with a school in Shanghai. Other schools in Liverpool have such an arrangement, which is not surprising as Liverpool is home to the oldest Chinese community in Europe. It dates back 300 years, and we have long-standing links with China.
I want such links to be reinforced. I want to ensure that we do whatever we can in the House and through the Government to provide additional support when that is appropriate. I note the tremendous work of the British Council in facilitating twinning arrangements and exchanges between schools. However, we have a long way to go to address the ignorance in this country and to service further exchanges between the many schools in China that are crying out for such arrangements. I hope that what happened in Japan post the Tokyo Olympic games and the Sapporo winter Olympic games, and what happened in South Korea post the Seoul Olympic games, will have a progressive effect post the Beijing games.
The Chinese Government and the Beijing municipality have gone out of their way to make sure that the games will be a great success. I have no doubt that, given the unity of purpose and the application of the Chinese people, they will be a tremendous success. There will be an influx of overseas visitors, the likes of which the Chinese have never had to contend with. The
10WH
games will be a beneficial occurrence. I am positive about it. It will have a similar effect on how the Chinese view other people. That will happen post-Beijing, as it happened post-Seoul, and to a large measure post-Tokyo. The games are important to the Chinese people and to their Government. I trust that we will play our part in making sure that they are a great success.
It is easy to have a mutual admiration society, but we cannot overlook the differences between us and the Chinese Government, especially on human rights. Mr. Tong pointed out to me that Guangdong province has a population of 135 million people. That is a sizeable province. Xi'an province, for example, has between 38 million to 39 million. That is a huge number of people, and we must remember that there are tensions within China as certain provinces and municipalities move on at a rate of knots. Its extremely entrenched and conservative countryside has the infrastructure to move on. However, that lends itself to strains and to an arbitrary way in which to deal with such matters.
To return to what I said about the Great Wall, there is a tremendous fear among the Chinese that if there is not an enemy from without, atomisation is always lurking round the corner from within. We should be aware of that when considering human rights in a Chinese context. The Chinese Government have strong views on missile defence, which reflect their long culture of feeling in peril from without. Her Majesty's Government have a different view. I speak only for myself, because I take issue with the Government on missile defence. We must recognise that in our dealings with the Chinese Government and people, who are on the edge in their development. Factors that incur mistrust are not helpful to anyone, and there is mistrust on both sides, on issues such as human rights on the one hand and missile defence on the other.
We have tremendous potential for trade, educational and scientific relations with China. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are from the part of the country from which I hail. Imagine a city stretching from Chester to Preston, and from the west of Merseyside to the east of Manchester, with 16 million people in it. That will give you some idea of the scale of what is happening in China. We would not feel uncomfortable in such a city; we would feel quite at home, as it would have many of the things that we aspire to for a civilised life.
To put it crudely, we should be getting a bit of the action. We have excellent civil servants in China who are doing an excellent job. The Leading Edge event is coming up in Shanghai in October, and is all about promoting British trade in the Shanghai autonomous area. It behoves British companies to take up those opportunities, to get out there and to sell themselves as those in other countries are doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. Three hon. Gentlemen wish to participate in the debate before the winding-up speeches. If they restrict themselves to, say, six minutes, we will get them all in.
10.11 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall restrict myself to six minutes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) for initiating the debate.

11WH
Like many other hon. Members present, I too have visited China as a guest of the Chinese Government. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) spoke about the different culture in China, which was referred to as a colossus by the hon. Member for Wirral, South. It is all those things. It is amazing to compare Beijing now with how it was the first time I went there eight or nine years ago. Downtown, one could still see carts being pulled by oxen with peat-like fuel on the back. Two years later, I did not see that in Beijing, and one now has to go further out into the countryside to see it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton is right to point out that China has a huge industry, and that amazing infrastructure projects are taking place in Beijing, Shanghai and other places. However, there is huge poverty outside those major urban areas, and that is a problem that the Chinese Government will want to address.
As has been said, it would be wrong for us to debate China and not mention human rights, and to think that by not mentioning the subject we were doing the Chinese a favour. The fact is that we do them a favour every time that we mention it. It is in the spirit of friendship that we raise those issues. This and previous Governments have promoted dialogue with the Chinese Government, and they continue to do so. The hon. Member for Wirral, South mentioned several delegations that have visited from China, and those from this country that have gone to China. The friendship that exists because of those visits is vital.
China is a colossus; it is a huge market. I get a bit depressed when I read the trade figures. The trade deficit in 1988 was £32 million, and now it is more than £4 billion. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton that we want a slice of the action. It is important that we start to focus more on that market. If the Germans and the French are doing that—I believe that we have overtaken the Italians now—then we, too, should do so. We must also focus on what we can do to improve our trade relations with China. As prosperity grows within China, it will buy goods from abroad, just as happened in this country. That is important.
As for tourism, I have been fascinated by places such as Chong Ching, which I had not even heard of before I visited it in September. It has a population of 32 million. That is amazing. I have visited other cities in China with large populations. We need to understand better the country's culture, rather than dictating to it, and learn about Chinese history. As has already been said, we should have more Mandarin lessons in our schools and universities. More people need to learn Mandarin, which will help trade in future.
It is amazing what China has to offer. Huge and growing numbers of people visit China to see, for example, the Great Wall, the terracotta army in Xi'an and the forbidden city, which is superb and unparalleled anywhere in the world. I hope that that will lead to more Chinese people visiting this country, which must be encouraged.
Education has been mentioned time and again, and it is vital. At the university of Central Lancashire, which is in my constituency, more than 500 students are Chinese.
12WH
China is its largest overseas market. The university is focusing on that and wants the numbers to increase, and I congratulate it on that. On 12 July, the Chinese ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Ma, will receive an honorary degree from the university, and I hope to be present to congratulate him on the recognition of his enormous work. He has been a great friend of the all-party parliamentary group on China.
I, too, congratulate the British Council on its work on English language learning and its investment in distance learning, which will have a huge market in the future. I also congratulate organisations such as the 48 group club, which is trying to improve trading relations between China and the United Kingdom. I have attended its annual Chinese new year luncheons, at which prominent people of all political persuasions have spoken.
No differences between the parties are involved. We want relations to continue to improve. We had a successful visit from the President of China, and the Vice-President came to London last year. That was superb, and we want to encourage such visits in future. I hope that we shall hear some suggestions from the Minister about how we can re-focus our attention and ensure that Britain has more than its fair share of the action in that amazing colossus of a country.
10.17 am
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). I was privileged to have the opportunity to be part of the delegation that recently visited China. It was hugely eye opening.
I have been very much involved in south-east Asia through my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan. Being in Shanghai and looking out over the city at night, I could not help but feel that Shanghai now will be the Tokyo of tomorrow. I have no doubt about that.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton that China is a massively key player in the world. It has an important role to play in exercising sanity in a volatile area of the world. I pay tribute to its recent work in trying to persuade India and Pakistan that conflict is not the way to resolve the problem of Kashmir, and that they must have dialogue on such issues. I envisage China playing that role much more in that part of the world, because it is undoubtedly a very stable country, even if we do not agree with the system that governs it.
I was also impressed with the concept of the socialist market economy that the Chinese say has developed—every time I look at my £2 Rolex watch, I think that there must be some merit in that new concept. China has a massive internal market of 1.2 billion people, which will grow to 1.5 billion. It has a hugely impressive growth rate of 7 or 8 per cent.
Travelling through the country, albeit only a part of it, was an exciting and interesting experience. The Chinese are adamant that their priority, above all else, is the unity of the country. Although all of us on the delegation voiced our concerns about human rights issues and about the political process itself, one can

13WH
understand why unity is a priority. We must remember that, only 60 years ago, China was a continent at war with itself. It was ridden with civil war. Warlords were running riot and part of China was occupied by Japanese forces. Sixty years later, it is hardly surprising that unity is the first priority of the country and the ruling elite.
I had never been to China before, but looking out at Shanghai and seeing how that city has grown is breathtaking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, a by-product of the political system in China is that a city such as Shanghai can develop quickly without worrying about planning applications that might involve five years of arguments—although I do not offer that as justification. The Chinese tend to decide and then do it. It might not be democratic, but it ensures speedy decisions.
I will not take up any more of the House's time. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the delegation that visited China. I thank my colleagues on the delegation for their comradeship and enjoyable company. Above all, I thank the Chinese people for their hospitality and for the opportunity to see a country that, in the normal run of events, I would probably never have seen. What I saw leads me to believe that China will increasingly be a powerhouse in the future. In the same way that we see the balance in world sport moving east—not least in football—the balance of economic power in the world will also move east.
10.23 am
Ian Stewart: I was also part of the recent delegation to China referred to by the chairman of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). As one of the vice-chairs, it normally falls to me to deal with human rights issues whenever we meet delegations from China. I do not want to say any more about that this morning other than that I associate myself with the chairman's comments. In a sense, the way in which we deal with concerns on human rights and other issues with our friends in China is a measure of the relationship between our two countries and peoples. I am an active member of the all-party Tibet group, and that is well known to our friends in China. Relationships are important, and we must understand that, in a true partnership or a marriage, whenever the partners fall out, they are not automatically divorced, otherwise there would be a great many divorces throughout the world. We must be able to put opposing views to each other, and realise that the wider interests of our two peoples are served by continuing dialogue.
I shall comment further on the historical perspective of the development of China as a very large country throughout history, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) alluded. He said that there have been many periods of trouble in China. Our nation must have the maturity—as must other nations, including France, Germany and America—to acknowledge that our actions in China during our imperialist and colonial period greatly angered the Chinese people over hundreds of years. That is quite understandable.
Those of us who have been lucky enough to visit China on delegations know that the Chinese people have matured a great deal during a short time in a
14WH
modern technological world. They have moved from a command economy to what they call a socialist market economy—I must admit that I am attracted by that concept—with a full understanding of the difficulties that that creates. They must deal with unemployment for the first time without an established social welfare safety net. They are astute enough to realise that they should look to countries such as Britain, America and other European countries. We have made our mistakes in those areas, and perhaps the Chinese people can learn from that, and from our good practice.
That is not a one-way exercise, because we can learn from China. Hon. Members have mentioned that China must address large environmental issues owing to its great economic growth during a short time. China is examining technologies and methodologies to ensure that its people gain the benefit of economic growth while dealing with the enormous ecological problems that such growth creates. China is investigating technologies that, to be frank, companies in Great Britain have sufficient finance to try. China is trying new technologies that we are not trying, although we would like to, and we can learn from its experience.
My hon. Friend the chairman of the all-party group alluded to the fact that China's economic and political maturity has been demonstrated. When the south-east Asian financial crisis hit the world—it was a world event—the Chinese Government showed real maturity by refusing to devalue the renminbi. That might not have happened in an earlier period; China might have thought that a short-term quick fix could earn it quite a bit. However, it played a mature and sincere role in that crisis. It has also played an excellent role in world peace through the United Nations Security Council, as well as unilaterally and bilaterally.
The future is bright, if only because China is talking to the world, and the world is talking to China and recognising that it is a major player in the world, and that it will increasingly be so. We should create a genuine partnership, which should include investment and social and political relations. I am optimistic about the future, although I am not uncritical.
10.30 am
Brian Cotter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on securing the debate, and I associate myself with his and other hon. Members' comments about the recent trip and the declaration of interest.
I shall concentrate mainly but not exclusively on the economy. China is a large country and has many facets, but we must use this occasion to look at the reality, which represents a challenge, but an opportunity. I have been told that the Chinese word for challenge also means opportunity; that draws attention to the Chinese character—and, I hope, the British character. I want us to see that China represents a great chance for us.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) referred to maturity. I endorse what he has said about the Chinese economy: it is not a mature market economy, such as ours. However, the Chinese displayed great maturity by resisting calls for devaluation during the recent Asian crisis, and subsequent utterances from the Chinese Government suggest that they will continue to take that approach.

15WH
We are talking about reality, and I was impressed by the way in which the Chinese Government are addressing their massive problems in respect of restructuring the job market and meeting new challenges. As has been said, Liberal Democrat Members stand back in amazement at developments in Shanghai, and at economic developments and the way in which they are being tackled.
The Chinese appear to be quick learners—and I hope that we will be too, because there is much that we can learn from China. The Chinese are setting up an economy by quickly learning things that have been done in our country and other countries. I offer one example of that: the remarkable scale of the stock exchange in Shanghai. One cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that after only 11 years the Chinese have established such a highly sophisticated operation, which can process transactions swiftly: more than 80,000 transactions per second can be handled at that single stock exchange.
The way in which the Chinese have dealt with the modernity of their computer systems so that they can deal with future needs is also impressive, as is their approach to regulation. When asked about what they will do to address future problems, they said that meetings are held almost daily to discuss what problems might arise and to find ways to solve them. Perhaps that is something that we can learn. In trading, their nationwide satellite communication network is also impressive. They are laying down lots of realistic foundations for the future.
Since its accession to the World Trade Organisation, China has had to meet change ever more quickly. That will give us and other countries greater opportunities for trade, because China's economy is likely to expand considerably. I hope that those few words on the economy will act as a backdrop to the most important element, which is that we should play our part in China's economic progress. Furthermore, a significant presence in China will mean a significant presence in the rest of Asia.
Bilaterally, China and the UK have had their problems. On the Chinese side, the blowing up of the Chinese embassy in Kosovo did not help relations; and more recently the US spy plane crash could have led to a return of the cold war. Another concern, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) suggested, is the United States' ballistic missile defence system, which is apparently supported by our Government. My party is strongly concerned about that development and the worries that it has caused, in particular to China.
On the other hand, we are right to raise issues such as Tibet, which remains a live and worrying problem. It is also right to refer to dissent in China. We believe that countries that are confident of their status, like China, should not feel the need to suppress dissent, but should welcome it instead. However, just as we are able to make such points about China, so the Chinese are entitled to make points about us. On the positive side, we are remarkably encouraged by the way in which the Chinese Government have come alongside us in trying to deal with terrorism throughout the world since 11 September. Those events acted as a catalyst to bring the two nations together.
16WH
We have a bilateral role to play in China because 30 years ago we became the first western country to give the country ambassadorial status. That has stood us in good stead, and in recent years it allowed us to settle the question of Hong Kong. Like many hon. Members, I feel respect and amazement when I see how China's Government have instituted the one country, two systems approach that they promised. Taiwan poses a similar problem, and I tentatively suggest that a similar one country, two systems approach could be used there—but that remains to be seen, and greater brains than mine will agree or disagree on that.
I spoke originally about the great importance of our economic relationship with China. Recent moves to create a free trade area involving China and the Association of South-East Asian Nations mean that our market will not be restricted to China, but will potentially be very much larger. Our bilateral relations will also cover those relationships increasingly being created within the wider trade area of the European Union community.
The UK is China's second largest trading partner and its biggest investor among EU countries. With China's GDP ranked sixth internationally, it has great potential, but we need to work harder to achieve our aim of increasing trade, particularly with regard to small businesses. As I have mentioned, of the EU member states, we are one of the top traders with China, but that position is not secure. We need to widen our trading base and make it more varied and diverse. I hope that the Government will continue to identify areas of current and future growth in China and focus on those areas where we lag behind.
I can speak for many when I say that we value our friendly relations with China, which are epitomised in many ways through Government, trade and other contacts. Reference was made to the many Chinese students in this country. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned twinning of schools, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer here, also talked about education. In my constituency, we have recently twinned four schools with schools in Beijing, and a programme is being fostered by the British Council to further such twinning. We want to engage people at an early age with a country a long way away.
The Chinese people are hard working, vibrant, enthusiastic, imaginative and innovative, and they have a long history and rich cultural background. Above all, like us, they are anxious to increase friendly relations between our two countries, and not only at Government level. As we saw when we went to China recently, the people are extremely friendly and welcoming. I thank them for their great hospitality.
10.40 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate you on your knighthood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which reflects your considerable contribution to our parliamentary life. I also want to express to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) the gratitude of everyone who has spoken. He has great knowledge of the subject and is a distinguished chairman of the all-party group on China.
Napoleon once described China as a slumbering giant. The same could be said today, except that the giant has begun to stir. We ignore China at our peril

17WH
because of its economic, political and cultural importance. Chinese civilisation and culture have made an enormously important contribution to the world. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said, we have long had a Chinese community in our country. That community has been greatly enlarged, and I pay tribute to its entrepreneurial energies and commitment to family support and excellence in education—wholly admirable characteristics that are an example to us all.
The emergence of China as a major economic and political power and in other ways will bring about internal changes in the country. We can already see change taking place. That has an impact on our bilateral relationship. The successful handover of Hong Kong was in no small way the catalyst for improved and ever-improving relations between our two countries. The way in which China has since handled Hong Kong has been immensely to its credit.
We agree with the first conclusion of the 10th report of the 1999–2000 Session by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and with the Foreign Office view expressed in it, which was that we should view as a priority the closer integration of China in the international system
"in all fields, as a friendly and responsible partner in dealing with global and regional issues".
The enhancement of British-Chinese relations over the past few years is extremely encouraging. Hon. Members have talked about visits by various politicians: only last year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had a lengthy meeting with Vice-President Hu Jintao in London, at which he affirmed the Conservative party's commitment to further its long-standing relations with China—an objective that the Government share. Our close relationship with the United States, which is appreciated and understood by China, affords us a special role in helping to act as a bridge between the two countries.
Internally, modernisation in China continues. The way in which the Chinese authorities reacted to the Asian meltdown was a source of great stability in the far east and for world economic conditions. As the economy changes in China, we see civil unrest, and we note the tough action by the Chinese Government against pro-democracy dissidents, especially Falun Gong adherents. No doubt they are seen as something of a challenge to the monopoly of power held in China.
We have heard about the large gap between the rich and poor in China, which appears to be widening, and about regional differences. That is a great challenge to China. How it addresses the needs of its people and adapts to the modern world, raising the living standard of all its people, will be one of the yardsticks by which its success in the 21st century is measured.
There is no doubt that recent economic growth in China has been absolutely unparalleled. Further economic liberalisation, utilising communications advances and the internet age, combined with China's access to immense human resources and the political will to make it work, should make such growth sustainable. Before the Asian meltdown, China used to attract about 30 per cent. of inward investment into the far east; that figure is now 70 per cent. That is one of the reasons why China is likely within eight or nine years to
18WH
become the world's fourth largest economy. China's accession to the World Trade Organisation represents an important step in establishing future channels for trade and prosperity for both nations. As the WTO director general Mike Moore said,
"With China's membership, the WTO will take a major step towards becoming a truly world organisation."
Economics is just one aspect of China's complex place in the world amidst the challenges of the 21st century. Since 11 September, we have seen new-found fluidity and changing relationships bring China into the fold of key world players. That is extremely important. We value China's support for the war on terror and its willingness to work with the west in that respect. We must all work together to face such challenges, and as China continues to emerge as an economic power, its political importance will grow.
We do not want to over-simplify the problem of the status of Tibet. We urge our friends in China to respect Tibetan culture and identity. China must recognise the rights of the Tibetan people to live in peace and security and to live their lives free from unwarranted pressure and discrimination. It would be inappropriate, as this is a matter for a longer discussion, to get into the issue of Taiwan, but it has an impact on US-China and UK-China relations in that Chinese sensitivities on Taiwan have to be recognised. All we can hope is that the two entities will work together to resolve the matter. As a third party, we should be wary of coming between the two principal players, but we should also look for ways to facilitate dialogue.
It is important to note that there are signs of US-China relations and UK-China relations improving. President Bush's visit to China in February 2002 was important, as was that of Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao to Washington. The normalisation of relationships between those two countries, in which we can play our part, is very important.
Also, as has been noted before, China's relationship with Pakistan and its more fledgling relationship with India have been helpful in cooling passions over Kashmir during the past few weeks. We have also touched on the vexed question of human rights violations. Some progress has been made there, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, we would not be good friends of China if we did not point out that that was an area of concern in the UK and in other parts of the world. On a more positive note, we very much welcome the fact that the Beijing Olympic games will take place in 2008 and will undoubtedly be a great success.
In its long history, China has suffered from wars and invasions by foreign powers. It is at last effectively united and confident, and it will undoubtedly be a major global power in the 21st century. There is a lively debate in China about how to marry economic liberalisation with a monolithic political structure. The 16th party congress in September is an important event and we hope that it will be a considerable success. Ultimately, however, no country can operate a free enterprise system without political plurality. That is China's greatest challenge as it emerges as more economically successful on the world stage. We shall watch developments there, confident that overall the forces of reform and modernisation will prevail.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): Sir Nicholas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address you by your new title and to be a member of a Government under whom you have been properly rewarded and honoured for your long service to Parliament. This has been a remarkably good debate and I ask our friends in the Chinese Government, in Chinese business and Chinese non-governmental organisations and human rights organisations to read hon. Members' words in Hansard. They spoke not just for themselves and Parliament but for the British people, and there is virtually nothing that I, on behalf of the Government, would disagree with in the contributions of almost all hon. Members.
Britain has a long-standing relationship with China. As had been noted, we exchanged ambassadors 30 years ago, having maintained diplomatic recognition at the height of the cold war. In passing, I pay tribute to Sir Edward Heath for his constant work in maintaining good relations between the United Kingdom and China. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on having obtained the debate, on his powerful and cogent speech and on his tireless work as chairman of the UK all-party group on China. The House and the Government owe him a debt of gratitude.
I first visited Canton, now known as Guangzhou, 20 years ago. At that time, there were bicycles, the odd, rather large, ugly black car and a few lorries. I was dumped back in my hotel at 5.30 for a dinner, given a vacuum flask of green tea and put in my room, where I remember watching the unfolding of the Falklands conflict via Chinese television. It seemed a lot clearer than the gentleman who was reading our news bulletins at the time.
I revisited Guangzhou recently. What a difference. Like Shanghai and Beijing, it is an extraordinarily strong, confident city of skyscrapers and apartment blocks, new cars and lots of people engaged in successful businesses. At the end of my stay, two young lady interpreters asked whether I could disco dance. I gave the first lessons at the Mao Zedong memorial agricultural institute. I may be responsible for having introduced disco dancing to a nation that has made it so much its own.
My message to business people, backpackers and gap year students is: go east young men and women, the future of the 21st century will be found in China. A two-hour flight away from Shanghai are 60 cities with more than a million people residing in them. In 10 years' time, the area stretching to Korea and Japan will produce 25 per cent. of the world's GDP.
As has been noted, China is rapidly becoming an economic power. It is also becoming a political power. Our relationship at diplomatic and political level is positive and good. The inward flow of visitors, including President Jiang Zemin and other senior officials, is strong and constant, and we regularly send top officials and Ministers to China. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit later this summer and I have been three times, having visited China more often than any other country for which I have ministerial responsibility. I hope to return in September.
20WH
There has been an eightfold increase in students—some 20,000 now study in the UK—and we are witness to a new phenomenon: a remarkably successful capitalist economy controlled by a communist system. Young Chinese people are studying overseas in rising numbers, more than 3,000 British projects are being undertaken in China, and there is an increasing level of inward investment from Chinese businessmen in the United Kingdom. We need to sustain the rhythm of economic contact.
The human rights issue remains a pebble in the shoe—or perhaps a thorn in the side—of our relationship. There is no ducking the need to refer to it. We do not seek to preach or impose our norms; all we ask of the Chinese authorities is that they obey their own laws and respect their international obligations under the international covenants that they have signed or ratified. We do not attempt to impose a western or United Kingdom vision on China. We request that every country in the world obey its own laws and international laws to which it has put its name.
I am positive about China, as are the rest of the Government and the hon. Members who have spoken, but we need a little dose of corrective realism. The extraordinary economic growth that has taken place in China has happened through the classic method of rapidly developing industry. The impact on the Chinese environment from rapid industrialisation, especially the increase in desert areas, must be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) was gaily contemptuous of the Chinese ability to bulldoze through the planning norms that feature in this country and others. Planning laws appropriate to each society are a mechanism for containing industrial development so that it has some relationship with nature. However, we see positive signs from China in that regard, as it reduces its use of fuels emitting CO2 and works constructively with other Governments to tackle the problem of global warming.
We must also take a reality check on the issue of corruption and the need to develop the rule of law in the commercial field. A separation is needed of business from Government. I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who spoke for the official Opposition, that a fully functioning open market economy is incompatible with a closed, secretive and unaccountable political system.
We need to deal with the theft of intellectual property rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath was of course joking when he referred to his £2 Rolex watch. When I am in China, I get no pleasure from seeing Burberry coats and other rip-offs from British firms on sale for £2. The lack of respect for intellectual property rights is no laughing matter, and those who return from China with their cheap Mont Blanc pens, fake Lacoste shirts or Rolex watches are doing a grave disservice to the companies and the employees of companies who make those products in Europe and elsewhere. China also needs to consider the need for trade union reform, to allow an authentic and autonomous voice in its labour market.
Mention has been made of human rights in relation to Tibet, which is an issue that I have raised with Chinese Ministers and officials. I have requested them to have a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Mention has also been made of Taiwan. Of course, we recognise the one-

21WH
country system, but increasing commercial contact between Taiwan and China seems a better way forward than mutually reinforcing military systems.
China is a huge source of culture. I cite Gao Xingjian, the Nobel prize winner, whose book "Soul Mountain" I have read and commend to hon. Members, and the highly important work being done by the British Museum and cultural institutions in China.
In the end, however, our policy must be one of engagement, engagement, engagement. For too long, China was isolated, as the west adopted a policy of isolation. The British Government's policy is one of constant engagement with a view to China entering the world, living under the rule of international law and enjoying peace and stability with its neighbours and partners everywhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Excellent Deabate

Gibraltar
11 am
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your recent knighthood. Everyone present was delighted to hear of it, and no one deserves the honour more than you. I am particularly pleased that our debate is about Gibraltar, because you have spoken about it on numerous occasions and have been a steadfast defender of the rights of the people of that British overseas territory.
I raise this issue because the people of Gibraltar have a right to be heard in this place. They cannot elect a representative to the House of Commons, yet Parliament and our British Government make decisions on their behalf. Since this subject was selected for debate, several hon. Members have spoken to me of their support and of the need to keep the issue alive. There is a great fear that the Government are letting down the people of Gibraltar behind closed doors and betraying their rights and interests, so I make no apology to the Minister for once again raising the issue in Westminster Hall.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know how frustrating it is for us to keep having to debate this issue. Imagine our constituents' anger if we regularly had to debate their rights and freedoms in the Chamber. Imagine the anger in the Minister's constituency if we regularly had to debate his constituents' rights and freedoms. It is utterly wrong that the present situation continues.
I proposed this debate because the discussions on Gibraltar have gone on long enough, and the people of Gibraltar have a right to expect a speedy conclusion. I understand that the Prime Minister is meeting the Prime Minister of Spain today, and I hope that the Minister will convey to him the strength of feeling in Parliament, among the British people and among those who live on the great rock of Gibraltar. I hope that the Prime Minister conveys those sentiments to the Prime Minister of Spain and that he realises that the game is up: he has no support for his plan to betray the people of Gibraltar. He should realise that he has misjudged the mood of our people and that he should ditch the entire ill-conceived process.
I am saddened by the need yet again to debate the Government's disgraceful and irresponsible attitude to Gibraltar and its people. The Government persist in their course of selling out the 30,000 loyal British subjects of that British Crown colony to Spain. They seem increasingly desperate to pursue that policy, despite the evidence that there is no support for it, except among some Labour Members, although only a few of them are here to support it.
Before I continue, however, I should like to convey the apologies of the chairman of the all-party Gibraltar group, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is in Hong Kong with a parliamentary delegation. He asked me to convey the feelings of the all-party group, of which I am secretary, and to say that the people of Gibraltar deserve better. The hon. Member for Chorley, a Labour Member, is not alone in holding that view, because there is much anger among Labour Back Benchers about the issue of Gibraltar. The fact that the

23WH
hon. Member for Chorley has articulated that anger on so many occasions proves that he has a great deal more integrity than some members of the Government.
Gibraltar is British, and its people want to remain so; who can blame them for that? That is unquestionable to anyone who has ever gone anywhere near the place or read reports of visits there. That is also clear from the recent visit to the rock by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who, in contrast to the cries of "Judas" that greeted the Foreign Secretary, was met with cheers from well-wishers, who thanked him for standing up for their democratic right to remain British and decide their own future. Having visited Gibraltar many times, I know the strength of feeling held by everyone there, their wish never to be ceded to Spain, in any respect, and their sense of betrayal and anger at this Labour Government's refusal to accept those wishes.
Mr. Nigel Evans: As my hon. Friend knows, I recently visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government there. Some 30,000 people took to the streets in anger at what our Government are doing in selling out the people of Gibraltar, because they believe, as we do, that the Government should be fighting for their interests. In the Government's discussions with the Spanish Prime Minister, they should be raising the issues of access to Gibraltar, of telecommunications and telephone lines to Gibraltar, and ensuring that Spain becomes a friend of Gibraltar, instead of wanting to poach people whose only crime is wanting to remain British.
Mr. Rosindell: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. It is the duty of any British Government, of whatever political persuasion, to defend the interests, rights and freedoms of British people anywhere in the world. The Minister has a duty to the people of Gibraltar, yet he ignores their concerns, fears and wishes.
I draw an analogy between the Spanish Government's attitude to Gibraltar and the attitude of the former Argentine Government to the British territories of the Falkland Islands. I had the pleasure of visiting Argentina in 1996. The Argentines have relinquished their claim over the Falkland Islands because they are mature and realise that it is better to form good relations and to befriend the Falkland islanders than to bully them, as the previous undemocratic Government did.
Only last week, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands, and Argentina is now a democracy. One would be forgiven, however, for wondering whether Spain is a democratic country, because the Spanish Government's attitude and tactics are disgraceful. The Spanish Government should take a leaf out of the Argentine Government's book and change their attitude. They will never win friends or influence the Gibraltarian people if they continue with their approach, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley for making a valid point.
At this point, I would like to mention that the Minister and Foreign Secretary have said on numerous occasions that the so-called Brussels process was initiated by a Conservative Government. I have some
24WH
news that I would like to convey to the Minister. Yesterday evening, I spoke to the noble Baroness Thatcher and informed her that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister had used her name in connection with the Brussels process on many occasions on the Floor of the House. She was incandescent at the suggestion that the actions of the Labour Government today are a result of a process that she initiated.
Baroness Thatcher told me that she was appalled at the prospect of the rights and freedoms of loyal British subjects in Gibraltar being sold down the river. She said, "Gibraltar must remain British." I ask the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all Members of the Government to desist from using Baroness Thatcher's name in this context, because it is dishonest and wrong.
On 7 November 2001, the Minister commented that, on his visit to Gibraltar he had found that
"Gibraltar is a proud place and that Gibraltarians are proud people".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 88WH.]
What the Minister omitted to say, and the reason why the Government are going so badly wrong, is that they lack understanding about what drives that pride. Gibraltarians are not proud to be a political football between the United Kingdom and Spanish Governments. They are proud to be British, and it is astonishing that the Minister or a member of any British Government cannot understand that.
Hon. Members should consider the demonstrations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that took place in Gibraltar on 18 March. Between 25,000 and 30,000 people—about 90 per cent. of the population—took to the streets to express their disgust at the Government's position. Imagine 90 per cent. of the Minister's constituents deciding to demonstrate on the streets of Neath. Would he ignore their wishes? He would not be a Member of Parliament for long if he did, and nor would any of us. That enormous display of anger and fear about their own future shows that the people of Gibraltar have spoken. It is time for the Government to acknowledge those wishes.
Furthermore, according to recent opinion polls such as that undertaken by MORI in March, 80 per cent. of people in Britain support Gibraltar's right to self-determination. A staggering 300,000 supportive messages and 45,000 e-mails reached the Government of Gibraltar office in London following press advertisements. Only the British Government continue to ignore Gibraltar's wish to remain British in its entirety and in perpetuity.
Two weeks ago, we all celebrated the magnificent occasion of Her Majesty the Queen's golden jubilee. It was an occasion for all British people, including the people of Gibraltar, to celebrate 50 years of our Queen being on the throne of our country. During the week of celebrations, a national newspaper said:
"While Britain enthusiastically celebrates the Queen's 50-year reign, her Government is pursuing a squalid campaign to deny Gibraltarians their fervent wish to remain her loyal subjects."
It is a shameful indictment of this Government that, during the Queen's golden jubilee, they are betraying 30,000 of her most loyal subjects. The Government must realise that they have given the impression that they are betraying those people, even if they do not consider that

25WH
they are doing that. They must acknowledge that, and they must end what has been described in that national newspaper as "a squalid campaign".
I turn to Spain, which is the country that would like to incorporate Gibraltar into its own kingdom. Spain is, supposedly, a modern, democratic European nation state, and I congratulate the King and the people of Spain on the enormous progress that their country has made during the past 20 years with regard to becoming a democratic country. However, it saddens me that an ally of ours—a country that is a member of the European Union and NATO—should continue to treat a small territory that is adjacent to it in such an appalling and undemocratic fashion. Although Gibraltar is historically and geographically close to the kingdom of Spain, it cannot be right that Spain a modern, democratic country—should continue to treat Gibraltar in such a way.
I offer some quotes from a speech that the chairman of the Gibraltar Federation of Small Businesses made at a recent meeting of the Congress for Democracy. She highlights many of the areas where Spain is behaving not as a modern, democratic country that respects human rights, but as a country that one would be surprised to learn is a democracy on the evidence of its behaviour to Gibraltar. She said:
"As part of the overall strategy of Spain to cause whatever harm it possibly can to Gibraltar, it has, with its British Government allies, managed to ensure that all airport-related measures specifically exclude Gibraltar, albeit that we are a British territory within the EU."
She went on to say:
"One has to question the logical reason for two democratic countries with populations of 60m and 35m to try to impose their joint wishes on a country of only 30,000 people."
That is a valid point.
Her third point is as follows:
"The persecution and aggression from Spain continues. Despite agreement when Spain joined the EU and opened the gates to Gibraltar, it continues to refuse to allow direct access by air or by ferry. When bad weather requires the closure of Gibraltar airport, the airlines are forced by Spanish air traffic control to take their passengers to Tangier in North Africa, then transfer them to Malaga, where they invariably face baggage delays and security checks. Why place passengers at risk by insisting on a visit to North Africa when the flight path to Gibraltar is directly over Malaga airport which by air is less than ten minutes away?"
I am glad that she made that point because my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and I had that experience only four months ago. We attempted to fly to Gibraltar, but we were diverted to Tangiers, because the kingdom of Spain-which is our friend and ally—would not allow the Gibraltarian flight to land in Malaga. We had to go to Tangier, where the flight had to be designated as a Tangier-Gibraltar flight. What country would treat an ally and a friend in such a way? What democratic country can justify such actions?
Marie Lou Guerrero continues:
"Contrary to EU law, the Spanish Government has chosen to limit international telephone links with Gibraltar. It refuses to accept … Gibraltar's international telephone code and has amended its telephone system to block the roaming facilities of Gibraltar mobile phones … The border with Spain has endless queues 24 hours a day. There is never an official reason for the delays and regardless of the British Government and EU Government claim that it has been condemned at 'high levels', the queues continue."
26WH
Those of us who have been to Gibraltar have seen those queues, and they are a disgrace. How can a fellow member of the European Union behave in such an obnoxious manner toward the kind, generous people of Gibraltar? How can it justify such actions?
Marie Lou Guerrero's final point is:
"Spain continues to veto any international event that Gibraltar enters whether it is a dog show or a sporting event. Within the EU, it continues to veto all legislation unless Gibraltar is excluded, except, of course, when Gibraltar's inclusion will cause extra work or hardship to the population. Gibraltar has implemented more EU legislation than Spain and during a recent check it was revealed that the number of directives to be implemented in Spain was more than those pending in Gibraltar."
The evidence is very clear, but does the Minister speak up for the people of Gibraltar? Not a bit of it. He continues to compromise with the Spanish Government. He continues to pander to the Spanish Government and to those in Brussels who want to see an end to territories such as Gibraltar throughout Europe.
I make no apologies for raising my next point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recently planned to visit Spain and meet the Prime Minister of Spain. That meeting was cancelled at short notice. How can the Prime Minister of Spain, who is the leader of a centre-right party, deny the leader of another centre-right party the opportunity of a bilateral meeting?
What is the Spanish Government's obsession that means that they cannot see that there are greater objectives in a modern world and a modern Europe than simply arguing over Gibraltar? It is utterly wrong that Spain chooses to behave in such a manner. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly continued on his visit to Gibraltar and ignored the Madrid Government's strong objection. It is time that the Prime Minister and Ministers in our British Government showed that same integrity and sense of duty on the issue.
Our Government are losing the debate on Gibraltar and resorting to the old tactic of discrediting their enemies and those who highlight how wrong they are. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' complaint to the Chief Minister about the lack of financial information from Gibraltar is part of that desperate and dishonourable tactic because Gibraltar is regarded as one of the best-regulated financial centres in the world.
During the past four years, Gibraltar has enacted strict new banking and financial codes. Gibraltar's financial services industry has met the standards set by many international organisations including the United States' Internal Revenue Service. Only last March, the industry received a glowing endorsement from the International Monetary Fund. The industry also follows European Union financial regulations. Yet the Foreign Secretary has even accused Gibraltar of failing to inform the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of financial information pertaining to the territory. How desperate must the Government be to make such unfounded accusations?
The facts are clear. All the Government's revenue and expenditure in Gibraltar is scrutinised by the House of Assembly at the time of the Budget, published and then passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. What could be simpler than that? The accounting and

27WH
financial affairs of Gibraltarian Ministers are controlled by the Accountant-General. The accounts are scrutinised by the House of Assembly. Equally, the Government's procurement contracts are put to tender in an open and transparent manner.
Amid such despicable allegations, the Government wonder why the Chief Minister will not attend talks on sovereignty. Mr. Caruana is to be commended on taking such a position of principle. There should be nothing to discuss in the first place. If there were, it should be when Spain will drop its totally unfounded claim to Gibraltar. As secretary to the all-party group on Gibraltar, I receive letters, e-mails and messages from people throughout the country about this subject.
Yesterday, I met two constituents in Romford who are Gibraltarian and who wanted to protest about the Government's actions. One of whom was Charles King, a local artist. He has painted a magnificent portrait of the rock of Gibraltar, depicting the Barbary apes and the Union flag. Sadly, in the portrait that he has so skilfully crafted, the Union flag appears to be fading in the background. It is so disappointing that a native Gibraltarian who now lives in Britain feels the need to depict such imagery.
I hope that the Minister will consider the emotion surrounding the matter and the fear among Gibraltarian people, both living on the rock and in the United Kingdom. The brother of my other constituent, Lucy Cahill, designed many of the stamps and commemorative memorabilia of Gibraltar. I thank both of those constituents for their help in our campaign to keep Gibraltar British.
The Minister should realise that he and his Government have aroused anger and fear about their real motives in respect of Gibraltar and how such action connects with their overall strategy of taking Britain further into the European Union and the Brussels monstrosity. If the issue of Gibraltar is ever to be settled, the territory must indeed—as the Minister for Europe wrote in Tribune—"be decolonised". In accordance with the overwhelming wish of its people, Gibraltar must be allowed to achieve devolved integration with the United Kingdom. France, the Netherlands, Spain and Denmark have all to varying degrees incorporated their overseas territories, with the result that they are constitutionally stable and not subject to repeated debates and referendums on their future. Devolved integration would be a modern, European, lasting solution to the Gibraltar issue.
I wish now to put some specific and awkward questions to the Government about their mishandling of the Gibraltar issue. First, what precisely are the legal grounds for the Minister for Europe's claim, made in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee last year, that the integration of Gibraltar would contravene the treaty of Utrecht? Legal opinion suggests that integration would be compatible with that treaty. Secondly, given that Spain secured the duty-free status of its integrated territories in north Africa with the European Union, why does the Minister for Europe feel that Gibraltar's special tax status would be a barrier to integration? Thirdly, why have the Government made no move to refer the question of Gibraltar's constitutional standing to the International Court of
28WH
Justice? Until that happens, the Government can continue to claim that any constitutional settlement emanating from Gibraltar contravenes the treaty of Utrecht.
Fourthly, on what legal basis does the Government hold that the treaty of Utrecht remains valid? The treaty has already been broken by Spain's repeated sieges of Gibraltar and by the presence of Jewish and Moorish populations, prohibited by the treaty. It has been superseded both by the treaty of Rome and the United Nations' declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. The treaty was written in an age when states signed over territories with little regard for their inhabitants, and it is totally incompatible with the democratic age.
It is the treaty that is the anachronism, not Gibraltar. I hope that the Government will finally open their eyes and see the reality of the situation. They are trampling over the people's democratic right to decide for themselves. It is not as if the people are divided on the issue; indeed, nearly everyone on the rock of Gibraltar wants to remain British. Barely anyone in Gibraltar supports a move towards unification with Spain, so why do the Government pursue that policy? There is a great danger that if the casual and flippant attitude of the Government and the feeling of betrayal continue, a much larger problem will loom on the horizon.
Gibraltar must remain British, and the Government should realise that the future of the rock must be stabilised. The only way to achieve that is for the Government to end this so-called "process", to end the discussions, to stand up for the rights of the British people of Gibraltar and to do the duty that they were elected to do. They should defend British people, instead of appeasing Spain and pursuing the wider goal of promoting British participation in everything that comes from Brussels.
11.32 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I join the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) in congratulating you on your knighthood, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I have known each other for many years and the award, which brings enormous pleasure to you and your family, brings equal pleasure to your many colleagues on both sides of the House.
I welcome the debate on Gibraltar, as will many hon. Members. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Romford on his luck in obtaining the debate. I have taken a close interest in the affairs of Gibraltar and have taken part in debates on the subject for many years. I have visited Gibraltar on several occasions. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am privileged to be the chairperson of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I remind all hon. Members and my right hon. Friend the Minister that Gibraltar is a member of the Commonwealth. The role that I play in the UK branch brings me into regular contact with many parliamentarians from Gibraltar, and we often discuss that issue.
The remarks that I shall make today are my own, but I tell the Minister that many members of Commonwealth Parliaments feel deep concern about what they see as the actions taken by the British and Spanish Governments towards Gibraltar. All of the Government's future

29WH
actions will be watched closely by fellow members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a family of nations. Whether the matter involves the richer or the poorer members, we closely support the rights of a fellow Commonwealth country when, as I believe is happening to Gibraltar, its rights and the voice of its people are being ignored.
I welcome this debate and the others that have taken place. As the hon. Member for Romford says, it is essential to ensure that the issue is never allowed to disappear. It now receives prominent coverage. It is unbelievable that the British Government are still closely involved in discussions with the Spanish Government on the future of Gibraltar.
The British Government know the views of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, parliamentarians of all political parties and, above all, the people of Gibraltar about any attempt to give Spain any control over the day-to-day affairs of Gibraltar. They have been told that in referendums and in the many letters that the people of Gibraltar write to us—not the standard letters that we all receive to which someone merely attaches a Member's name or which are merely signed, but letters written by men and women in their own handwriting that clearly express their views on this important subject. The message is clear: "Leave us alone." That is what they are saying. They want nothing to do with the proposals of the British or Spanish Governments about their future.
No one learned that better than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on his recent visit to Gibraltar. There were thousands of people on the streets and thousands of Union Jacks on display. However, I did not read a single poster that said. "Welcome Jack. Jack, you're our friend. Jack, we trust you with our future." I did not see one poster displaying such sentiments on the part of the people of Gibraltar. However, I did see many other posters that clearly showed the true feeling of the people of Gibraltar towards the British Government and my right hon. Friend. Have they not yet got the message, "Leave us alone"?
As the hon. Member for Romford says, vast numbers of people in the United Kingdom fully support the views now being expressed by the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, and he is joined in his view by many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. I fully support his action in not attending the talks between the British and Spanish Governments, as I do not believe that he is accorded equal respect. He is the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and was elected in a democratically run election. He speaks with the overwhelming and massive support of the people of Gibraltar, who completely trust him in looking after their interests and those of Gibraltar. Yet there is no evidence that his views—the true views of Gibraltar and its people—will be listened to and acted on.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regularly says that he fully supports democracy, human rights and the voices of free people. No one could say that the people of Gibraltar are not free. No one could say that they do not have a voice in the crucial negotiations taking place, so why do the British Government not listen to that voice? I would not expect the Spanish Government to listen. Many of us know them of old and know the behaviour that they have shown to Gibraltar
30WH
and its people over many years, as the hon. Member for Romford outlined. However, I would expect the British Government to listen.
I am one of the United Kingdom's representatives on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Two weeks ago, commencing on 3 June, the assembly of the WEU met in Paris. One of the main speakers was the Defence Minister of Spain, Mr. Trillo-Figueroa, who represented the presidency of the WEU and the European Union. He made a lengthy speech in which he repeatedly mentioned the importance of human rights, freedom and listening to public opinion. Never did he mention Gibraltar or the discussions between the British and Spanish Governments. I pointed that out and asked him, given his repeated comments on democracy, for his views on the discussions and the clear opinion expressed by the people of Gibraltar.
I have with me the full transcript of that speech and my question. We are not talking about an unknown Back Bencher of the Spanish Parliament, but the Defence Minister of Spain. In his reply to me, he did not once mention the views of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar or of the people of Gibraltar. He talked about the treaty of Utrecht and international law. In his closing comments, he said that he hoped that the Governments of the UK and Spain would have reached agreement on Gibraltar by the end of the year. What arrogance to assume that! He gave no suggestion that he would listen in any way to the views of the people of Gibraltar.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I know, as do many other Members of the House, that the people of Gibraltar do not trust Spain. That is regrettable, but true. My right hon. Friend has a job of work to do; he must try to defend and sell the proposals. I was a Minister during the premierships of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan many years ago, and often had to defend policies that I was not very happy with. However, knowing my right hon. Friend's background in defending democracy and human rights, I cannot believe that, deep in his heart, he can feel happy in seeking to defend the negotiations.
All of us, whatever party we belong to, are deeply concerned at the lack of interest in politics, the lack of trust in politicians and the appalling low-percentage turnouts at elections. The hon. Member for Romford referred to the volume of letters and e-mails. Given our deep concerns, does my right hon. Friend really think that the electors of this country will have their opinion of and trust in politicians enhanced if they believe that the British and Spanish Governments are driving the matter through, irrespective of what the people of Gibraltar have clearly said? I want the relationship between the United Kingdom and Spain to improve. I repeatedly meet Spanish parliamentarians, and I like them; they serve on a committee that I have chaired at the Council of Europe. However, we are considering the rights of people who have loyally shown their allegiance to this country. This country should now show its allegiance to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that we must allow the Minister time to respond. I hope that not only Back Benchers but those who will sum up from the Front Bench will use self-discipline.
11.45 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: May I join in the consensus by expressing my pleasure that you have been so rightly honoured, Sir Nicholas? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing the debate, which seems to be a regular feature in this Chamber. We have debated Gibraltar several times in the past few months and it is appropriate, given the meetings that are going on, that we should debate it again. I shall keep my comments brief.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said about Gibraltar's relationship with the Commonwealth; that is worth remembering. Equally, it is sometimes difficult to remember, when one listens to Government speeches, that Gibraltar is also a member of the EU, which it entered, together with the UK, in 1973. It is a European territory, for whose external relations a member state, in this instance the United Kingdom, is responsible. Accordingly, article 227(4) of the EC treaty applies. That is difficult to believe when one reads articles by the Minister—the most recent in The House Magazine—about the impediments posed to our relationship with the EU by Gibraltar. He says that there has been the usual scaremongering about the Government's intentions by those who should know better. However, we are entitled to ask what the Government's ultimate intention is. It is far from clear.
Why do the Government always appear to be taking Spain's side, rather than championing the rights of the people of Gibraltar, for whom they are responsible? The Prime Minister is meeting Mr. Aznar. He has also had the opportunity of meeting the Chief Minister—an invitation that, to date, he has declined. It is worth remembering why the Chief Minister will not come to the talks under the present restrictions. It is all about terms, and the terms are all important. In Spain's words, the Chief Minister was invited merely to express an opinion on matters of his competence. That is extraordinary, given that the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Pique, said that the opinion of the people of Gibraltar "is not relevant" to the question of sovereignty. In other words, as the Chief Minister says,
"I am invited to take part in the talks only to express my opinion, but on the sovereignty of my homeland not even to express my opinion. To participate on those terms would be to renounce our right to self determination, which we will never do."
He is right. I ask the Minister to address the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford that the International Court of Justice should revisit the treaty of Utrecht, and all breaches of agreements over the centuries. Does the Minister agree that if the matter were to be referred to the court, we should abide once and for all by the outcome?
I invite the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in Fiji last month by the Deputy Chief Minister, Mr. Azopardi, who proposed using more balanced language in draft seminar conclusion No. 48. He called for the replacement of the reference to the UK and Spain in the description of the process of dialogue by a reference to "interested parties", which would obviously include the Gibraltar Government on behalf of the people of Gibraltar. More important, it called also for the inclusion of a reference to the outcome having to be in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. The Minister will not be surprised
32WH
to hear that Spain rejected that idea, but I believe that it is worthy of consideration. I invite him to address that point.
11.50 am
Mr. Mark Francois: May I add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the congratulations on your richly deserved honour? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing this important debate and on introducing it so ably.
We have had three debates in Westminster Hall on the subject of Gibraltar since last autumn. It is worth noting that, in previous debates, the Government have at least been able to drum up support from a handful of Back Benchers. As we have clearly seen today, they cannot get one Back Bencher from more than 400 Labour MPs to turn up.
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): They are on Select Committee business.
Mr. Francois: They cannot all be attending Select Committees. The Government cannot get the support of their Back Benchers, which is telling.
We know that there is no support in Gibraltar for what the Government propose. We have heard of the demonstration on 18 March, when more than 25,000 people—about 90 per cent. of the population—demonstrated vociferously against what the Government were proposing. When the Foreign Secretary visited Gibraltar, he was given the mass equivalent of what is described in the Army as an interview without coughing.
Discussions on the subject have been undertaken above the heads of the people of Gibraltar, and without their support—in their name, but without their consent. Equally, there is no support in Britain for the proposals. We have already heard that some 80 per cent. of those polled by MORI said that they supported Gibraltar's right to self determination; and 300,000 responses to a newspaper advertising campaign and 45,000 e-mails give a clear indication of popular opinion in Britain.
As in previous debates, we have not yet been given a satisfactory answer as to why the Government are continuing to push ahead when it is evident that the people of Gibraltar and of Great Britain do not want what is proposed. Why are the Government investing so much political capital in such an obviously unpopular process? Many believe that the Government have gone to all the trouble not for the welfare of those who live on the rock but to secure Spanish votes in the European Union. Ultimately, the Government are prepared to sell 30,000 people down the river so that, at certain EU meetings over the next few years, the Spanish Government representative will raise his hand when the British Government representative asks him so to do. This was always going to be a sordid deal, and the longer the process has gone on, the more sordid it has become.
I realise that Front-Bench Members wish to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I agreed to keep my remarks brief. I shall conclude quickly. It has been widely reported that the talks are now stalled and that the momentum of the process, such as it was, has faltered. I very much hope that that is the case. If it is, will the Minister finally lay the issue to rest today to clarify the

33WH
whole business? That would allow the people of Gibraltar and of Great Britain to celebrate Gibraltar's remaining British. After all, that is all that the people of Gibraltar have asked for. The Government's initiative has gone on for long enough and appears to have run into serious trouble. It has no support on the rock and none in this country. It is a child with no parents and this orphan should finally be laid to rest.
11.55 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Sir Nicholas, may I add to the burden of congratulation under which you labour? I congratulate you on your recent richly deserved honour. I am sure that it will be a difficult week for you, dodging compliments around the Palace.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing this debate on a subject that remains extremely topical—as each contributor has made clear—yet curiously unresolved. It is nearly five months since we last debated the subject in this Chamber and we have not discussed it on the Floor of the House during that period. The status of the negotiations is still unclear, as are the Government's objectives. Officially, we are given a lot of general themes, but not many specifics.
The hon. Member for Romford said that he understood that the Prime Minister was meeting with his Spanish counterpart. He was right to be wary because, compared with previous meetings between the two Prime Ministers, there has been no advance publicity, no speculation and no—dare I say it—spinning. My office checked with the Downing street press office just to make sure that the meeting was still going ahead and received confirmation that it was. I hope that something will emerge from the meeting other than the usual nice words to the effect that the talks were conducted in a friendly and constructive atmosphere. Such phrases are all very well, but we need to know whether there is a chance of anybody agreeing anything.
The Liberal Democrats take a slightly different position from those Members who have already spoken, in that we support the talks—the Brussels process—whoever started them and whether or not they remain committed to them. We firmly believe that without discussions nothing can ever change and we regret that the representatives of Gibraltar have not felt comfortable with the process and are not party to those talks, although the Minister will no doubt remind us that they have an open invitation to join in.
To be successful, the discussions will require a deal between the Governments. Based on what the Minister has said before, there will then be negotiations with the Gibraltar authorities and, after that, an endorsement of the conclusions will be sought from the people of Gibraltar. That sounds simple enough but the realities are pretty stark, never mind the apparent lack of progress between the Governments over the issue of sovereignty and the problem of the bases in particular.
Even if that problem can be overcome, the mood of the people of Gibraltar is negative to say the least. There is probably more chance of Scotland winning the World cup than of the UK Government holding sway in a referendum. In the past few months, a number of diplomatic efforts have been made to persuade
34WH
Gibraltarians that the rock is safe. There have been salvos in the local newspapers and even visits by the Foreign Secretary. That process has not been particularly successful. Members have already mentioned the dramatic demonstrations on 18 March, followed by the advertising blitz in the United Kingdom in the middle of May.
Whatever one's views of the Government's tactics or actions, the message from Gibraltar is clear enough. The residents do not trust what the Government and the Spanish Government are up to. After 300 years of British sovereignty, they fear that they will not even have 300 days before they are bounced into new arrangements. However, it does not have to be like that. I have already stated that we support the Brussels process, but I repeat our previous assertions that the three parties must be encouraged to be part of that process.
The Government have set out their four objectives for resolving the dispute: to preserve the Gibraltarian way of life; to offer greater self-government; to improve the practical benefits, whether in access to telecommunications, health services or in other areas; and to achieve an agreement on sovereignty. All that would help Gibraltar by assisting the United Kingdom in pushing its wider European Union agenda.
Gibraltar clearly wants to achieve most of those objectives, even if it is nervous about sovereignty, which may be a slight understatement. Spain also needs to see the bigger picture and wants to remove what it perceives as historical difficulties. Everyone has something to gain from the process, but the process seems designed to fail.
Trust must be the key; the only way in which any settlement will succeed is by winning the trust of the population as a whole. Some may seek to disparage those who lead the campaigns in Gibraltar, but the people of the rock will not be won round if they do not know the outline terms of the discussions between Governments, what form subsequent negotiations with Gibraltarian authorities might take, what period will be allowed for deliberations and what type of question will he asked in the referendum.
Finally, on an issue that has not been focused on today, what happens to any intergovernmental settlement if the referendum is lost, as looks likely? The Government have said that, in that instance, the settlement will not apply but that we cannot uninvent the deal. Perhaps we cannot, but we can formally withdraw from it and confirm that future discussions will start afresh. The people of Gibraltar deserve reassurances on that point and many others.
No one would choose to start from here with the process, given the almost certain prospect of failure. However, with the reality that the Gibraltarian authorities are not participating, a new approach is desperately needed. If the Government are still committed to a referendum, they, too, must be pragmatic about its prospects. Others must play their part. Gibraltar should be encouraged to participate, and Spain needs to pursue genuine and wholehearted confidence-building measures.
The Government in the United Kingdom need to reframe the whole process fundamentally. They must be clear about the measures under negotiation: preserving the Gibraltarian way of life; promoting greater self-

35WH
government; and easing restrictions on everyday life. They must be straightforward about the terms of negotiation on sovereignty and realistic about the need for a decent period to discuss the conclusions of negotiations. They must also be fair-minded—dare I suggest—about the subsequent referendum process.
It has so far taken 300 years to get us to the present stage. The impression is often given that we have only another 300, or perhaps only 30, days to sort matters out. If that remains the strategy, a huge rebuff is in the offing. The process is right in concept but wrong in execution, and it is doomed to failure.
12.3 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on introducing the debate and on taking such a lively interest in the subject of Gibraltar and foreign affairs in general. My hon. Friend has posed three key questions, to which I hope the Minister responds. I congratulate all other hon. Members who have participated in the debate.
The negotiations with Spain that the Government have conducted—or, rather, misconducted—may have stalled. Given the Government's efforts to bully the Gibraltarians into accepting a deal on joint sovereignty to which they are totally opposed, we would certainly welcome the stalling of the talks, which would give us an opportunity for some fresh thinking. The Government must not suggest that a deal could lie in abeyance, only to reconstitute it later. Given the reported difficulties in the negotiations, today would be an excellent time to announce the suspension of the talks. Doing so would bring great relief to the 30,000 residents of Gibraltar. As my hon. Friends have observed, hundreds of thousands of people in this country have written letters and e-mails in support of the Gibraltarians' right not to have imposed on them a future that they do not want.
Under normal circumstances, I have considerable regard for the Minister, but I must tell him that the talks are a sad reflection on the Government's competence, and show their disregard for Gibraltarians' rights. From the start, the talks have been ill thought-out, and the Government's language has been inflammatory and marked by their incorrigible habit of employing bullying spin. I am sure that the Minister recalls his Parliamentary Private Secretary talking of massive smuggling in Gibraltar, even though it was perfectly clear that there was no basis for that allegation. The Spanish Government provided no evidence to support it. I once again call on the Minister to apologise for that remark.
There are many other examples of such behaviour, including accusations of money laundering and of pensions being owed to Spanish workers. That is all part of the Government's reprehensible use of the black arts of propaganda against the people of Gibraltar. As a result of such intemperate language, people there have no confidence in the Government's ability to look after their interests. The Minister has mocked their numbers and claimed that they are stuck in the past, have been left behind and do not do what the Government want. How can such talk be at all constructive or help to resolve the problems?
36WH
From the beginning of the negotiations, the Government held out the carrot of joint sovereignty for Spain, even though they should have known that the people of Gibraltar did not want it and that it would not be enough for the Spanish. Ministers gave way and offered what they could not deliver. It took them months to accept our "two flags and three voices" formula for the talks. If they had done so earlier, we might have been in a better situation than we are now.
Ministers apparently hit on the idea of leaving a joint declaration of proposals hanging, regardless of whether the people of Gibraltar rejected them. I call on the Government to agree that any such joint declaration will be null and void if the people of Gibraltar reject it in a referendum. We had hints in Foreign Office questions in April that the Government might have accepted our argument, and today's debate would give the Minister a good opportunity to calm anxieties in Gibraltar and in the House, and to redeem the mess that the Government have created in the negotiations.
I should make it clear to the Minister that no incoming Conservative Government would feel bound by any agreement on surrendering Gibraltar's sovereignty or by any agreement that had not received the assent of the people of Gibraltar.
The Spanish have said that they will never give up their sole claim to Gibraltar and that, although an agreement on shared sovereignty might be long-lasting, it cannot be fully accepted until the issue of full Spanish sovereignty is tackled. They have said that they will not accept an agreement that does not give Spain joint use of the military base in Gibraltar. With good sense, the Secretary of State for Defence noted how unpopular the talks were and how unacceptable it would be for Britain to have anything less than full control and sovereignty over the military base in Gibraltar.
In short, the Government have bungled the negotiations and shown a bizarre dismissal of the democratic wishes of the people of Gibraltar. As we have heard, Gibraltar has been subject to harassment by Spain, and talks with Spain are needed to resolve those problems. Spain is a good friend and ally of the UK, which is what makes this all so painful. It is surely in everyone's best interests that Gibraltar and Spain should have a good and neighbourly working relationship. Both Gibraltar and Spain would profit from that, and the Brussels process was set in motion to try to achieve it.
I hope and trust that the Minister will take this opportunity to inform the House about the current state of the talks and tell us when we can expect a meeting between the respective Foreign Ministers. We know that the Prime Ministers are currently meeting. I hope that he will also say whether the Government still expect the talks to be concluded by the summer and, if not, what effect their failure will have on British-Spanish relations. We want a clear statement on what will happen if the proposals are rejected by the people of Gibraltar and what their status would then be in the eyes of the British Government.
In November, the Minister asked the people of Gibraltar to judge the Government on their actions. The Gibraltarians' view of the Government's conduct was made clear by the reception given to the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit. By contrast, my right hon.

37WH
Friends the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition were given the most warm and spontaneous welcome by the people of Gibraltar, which said it all. Support for the liberties of the people of Gibraltar extends to all parts of the House of Commons—it is not a party political issue—and that has come through loud and clear in all our debates on the matter.
The Government should respect the clear judgment already made by the people of Gibraltar, acknowledge the harm that the Government's incompetence has done to relations between Britain and Gibraltar—and, indeed, between Britain and Spain—and suspend the talks immediately. Rarely in our long history have a British Government conducted themselves with such a lack of sensitivity and succeeded in infuriating everyone concerned.
Echoing the words of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the Minister has a proud record of defending people's democratic and human rights over many years. I ask him to reflect on what has happened to Gibraltar and on the pressures being placed on the people of Gibraltar by the Government. In the interests of everyone concerned, the talks should be suspended immediately.
12.12 pm
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chidgey. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to join in congratulating your predecessor in the Chair on gaining a knighthood.
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) for securing the debate, because it gives me an opportunity to reply on this important subject. I am also grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has a long and honourable record of working for the Commonwealth, as well as for the contributions of the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring).
The hon. Member for Romford asked me a series of questions, one of which related to the International Court of Justice. The reason why the matter of sovereignty cannot be referred to the International Court of Justice is because both countries must agree to such a referral, and Spain does not recognise the issue as one that comes under the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
I was astonished at the hon. Gentleman's question about statistics because, as the Foreign Secretary said in a letter to the Chief Minister on 19 April 2002, there is a lack of up-to-date statistical information on Gibraltar. A statistical abstract for Gibraltar has not been produced since 1997; five years is a long time without comprehensive official statistics.
In May 1998, a Government-funded consultant reported that Gibraltar's accounts estimates were
"weakly based and little confidence can be placed in them".
There is a question as to whether Gibraltar is complying with its obligations under European Community law on statistics. I should have thought that he would have wanted that matter dealt with, as we are seeking to do with the Government of Gibraltar.
38WH
There has been much talk about spin recently. As the House will know, I do not do spin. I shall set out the facts, clearly and simply. We made it clear from the outset of the negotiations last July that our shared objective was a future in which Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and the opportunity to reap the full benefits of normal co-existence with the wider region, and that the guiding principle was to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and, yes, for it to retain its traditional British way of life and citizenship.
When the talks come to an end, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement in the House setting out the agreement that we have reached or explaining why we have not reached an agreement. As we have long said and as I told the Chamber on 31 January, there is nothing inevitable about such matters. A solution to the Gibraltar dispute has eluded Britain and Spain for more than 300 years. It may continue to elude us. We may have to wait a while. As we have also made clear, no agreement is better than a bad agreement.
Our objectives in the negotiation are simple. They are to preserve Gibraltar's way of life, establish greater self-government for the people of Gibraltar, deliver lasting practical benefits and a stronger economy and secure a permanent agreement on sovereignty so that Gibraltarians can enjoy security for their way of life—a security that they have not enjoyed during 300 years of dispute. I remember also saying on 31 January that we are negotiating with Spain a framework agreement, a set of principles for a settlement that we would commend to the people of Gibraltar. It would be a basis on which we would invite the Government of Gibraltar to join us in putting flesh on the bones and to work up detailed arrangements that could be put before the people of Gibraltar in a referendum to which we remain committed.
We are not selling out Gibraltar. No deal will be implemented unless the people of Gibraltar agree in a referendum. We are not doing deals over the heads of the Gibraltarians. Contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for East Devon, we offered the Chief Minister—and, through him, the people of Gibraltar—a place at the table from the start. It was always—contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for West Suffolk—on the basis of two flags, three voices. We made it clear that the Chief Minister could help to shape the outcome and that, if he did not like it, he would not be bound by it. He refused. We have not excluded the Gibraltarians; Peter Caruana has.
We are not hiding an already done deal. There may not be one. There will not be one unless it meets our bottom lines. We are not giving Gibraltar away to Spain. As I have made repeatedly clear in the House, there has never been any question of doing so. We are pursuing the negotiation for two reasons: for Gibraltar and for Britain itself.
We are doing it for Gibraltar because Gibraltar will not thrive while the dispute festers. It will not thrive as long as Gibraltarians have to put up with the everyday disruption that they currently endure, such as uncertainty and queues at the border, telephones that do not work and air services that do not fly, to which Opposition Members have referred. Gibraltar will not thrive as long as its economy cannot fully modernise and

39WH
join the new global marketplace, attract new investment, remove barriers that separate it from the wider region or secure full access to the largest single market in the world—the one on its doorstep, that of Europe. Such matters all require an end to the dispute with Spain.
We are entering into such negotiations for Britain.' do not apologise for that, because the dispute is damagingour interests. Our trade with Spain is worth more than £8 billiona year. It supports thousands of British jobs in our constituencies. I am astonished at the anti-Spanish prejudice shown by Conservative Back Benchers.
Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: Not for the moment. I want to make progress. If I have time, I shall give way later.
Our alliance with Spain in Europe in helping us to deliver a European Union of strong nations and a European economy that creates jobs and prosperity across Britain. However, that relationship remains constrained by the Gibraltar dispute. If we are really going to get the best for Britain out of our links with Spain, we must fix the issue.
Real things are at stake in the EU, too. The dispute has blocked or delayed benefits such as the liberalisation of the European aviation market, in which British companies will do very well. We want measures to make air travel safer, flights cheaper and delays shorter for the British people and British businesses. Those are real things that real people—including our constituents—want, and they are obstructed or delayed by this dispute. The dispute affects not only 30,000 Gibraltarians—although their rights remain paramount—but 59 million Britons.
We are not doing this for fun. Nobody who saw the treatment that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received from some of Her Majesty's citizens during his recent visit to the rock would think that. He deserves not abuse but credit for setting out for the people of Gibraltar some difficult home truths that many of them still do not want to hear. That is the honesty and real leadership that people in Britain want from their Government Ministers.
I draw a comparison with the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and with the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Their strategy has been the complete opposite: to tell the Gibraltarians only what they want to hear.
We are not doing this for the Spanish, either. Anyone present, as I was, at the tough negotiations with the Spanish, would know that it was not some cosy love-in. The truth is that this is an outdated historical dispute that has no place in modern Europe.
It is striking that the speeches from Back Benchers—especially Conservatives—and, despite my admiration for him, from the hon. Member for West Suffolk, put forward no alternative. No clear alternative policy is being put forward by the Conservatives for resolving
40WH
this dispute—only shouting and screaming. We have tried and will continue to try honestly to resolve this dispute.
Mr. Spring: That is an absurd caricature of what the Conservative party has said. There is a powerful echo in this dispute with the way in which the question of Northern Ireland sovereignty was handled. The Republic of Ireland was told from the beginning that there was no question of joint sovereignty. Once the issue of sovereignty was taken away—once that thorn was removed—all other discussions became possible, including on possible relationships across border. That is the basis on which to operate, given what was guaranteed to the people in the treaty of Utrecht. It is a parody for the Minister to say that we have no considered view on how to handle the dispute.
Peter Hain: The real parallel with Northern Ireland is that negotiations took place between parties and groups that had been locked in an historic and bitter dispute. The only way to resolve the dispute is to talk to Spain, which is what we have been trying to do. The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned sovereignty. The Brussels-process negotiations—begun, I say to the hon. Member for Romford, under Baroness Thatcher's Government in 1984 and continued under every successive Tory Administration since then all the way through the 1990s—included the issue of sovereignty. It is part of the Brussels-process framework, launched and agreed by the Conservatives under Baroness Thatcher.
We have come a long way since we and Spain reopened the talks last year. For the first time in history, we talked honestly and openly about Gibraltar and how to give it a secure future. We have built confidence between Spain and ourselves. The talks have been tough, but we have both reached a better understanding of each other and our respective interests. Whatever happens, I am confident that the strong relationship that the Government have already built with Spain will endure.
We have also seen efforts by Spain, which we have encouraged, to build confidence where it is most needed: between Spain and Gibraltar itself. The second channel at the border opened in March, and queues that sometimes took hours have been cut to minutes. Foreign Minister Josep Pique's personal letter to the Gibraltarians—the first ever by a Spanish Foreign Minister—in which he sought a new relationship and understanding was another example.
We never thought that this was going to be easy, and it has not been. Serious differences remain between us. With regard to the longevity of any agreement to share sovereignty, we insist that it must be certain and enduring; it cannot be a slippery slope to full Spanish sovereignty. We also insist that the military facilities in Gibraltar must remain under British control. However, the most important consideration is the role of the Gibraltarians. We insist that they—rather than Spain or the British Government or anyone elseߞmust decide whether to accept any agreement on sovereignty. It isnow make your mind up time for Spain. It knows our bottom lines. There will be an agreement only if it meets them, and if we believe that we can commend the agreement to the people of Gibraltar.

41WH
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Spanish Foreign Minister Pique will meet in a few days at the Seville European Council, and in London on 26 June, when the details that the hon. Member for Romford asked for will be addressed. The next formal Brussels-process meeting will take place after that. We would rather have no deal than a bad deal. A good deal must advance the interests of Britain and Gibraltar. We will not sign up to anything that does not do that, and Gibraltar will have the final decision.
The Opposition do not care about British interests. They are not even interested in having a serious debate. Is that the case because Gibraltar is the only place left on earth where anyone is pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition? I offer a quote from the Daily Mail, which is not usually a source of support for the Government. It reported his recent visit to Gibraltar thus:
"This is little short of political paradise for lain Duncan Smith. Hugged and kissed at every turn. Hailed as a saviour by all he meets. Pursued across sun-swept squares by a cheering mob of Union Flag wavers. He would be lucky to get a welcome like this at his own birthday party at a Tory party conference, let alone walking down a street. There is only one slight problem: this lot can't vote."
I welcome the current policy of the Opposition, and I hope that they will carry on with it, because saloon-bar nationalism—the frothing at the mouth about sovereignty and their obsession with Europe—is what lost the Tories the last election. I hope that they will not heed the words of a former Chairman of their party, who was rather good at winning elections. On 17 May, Chris Patten said of these negotiations about Gibraltar:
"I am amazed at the criticism … because the concessions Labour are considering are the same as the ones John Major's government was willing to make."
Of course, Chris Patten was a member of John Major's Cabinet. He continues:
"In politics, it is important that parties do not lose their sense of history. Some of this criticism expresses an out of date and completely obsolete vision of Spain. What Straw and Pique are trying to do is very difficult and complex, but not impossible."
Baroness Thatcher began this process in 1984. Every successive Conservative Administration continued it, and we are now trying to settle the matter. If we do not
42WH
settle it now, it will not get settled for a long while. There is an historic opportunity and we have made a big investment of time and effort. If this does not work, we will turn to other matters, and Britain and Spain will be losers, but the biggest losers will be the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Swire: I wish to offer the Minister an opportunity to withdraw his facile remarks about the Conservative Opposition being anti-Spanish. It is possible to be pro-Spanish as well as pro-British and, by definition, pro-Gibraltarian.
Peter Hain: I am a Minister in this Government and I am pro-British, pro-Gibraltarian and pro-Spanish, which is why we are trying to resolve this matter. I have made it clear that the prejudices that have been expressed did not come from the Conservative Front Bench, but they were revealing about the real views that some of the party's Back Benchers hold about Spain.
Mr. Francois: The Minister intimated that the Government are attempting to bring the process to some kind of conclusion. Is it realistic to hope that we might have a statement in the House by the Foreign Secretary before we rise for the summer recess?
Peter Hain: I do not know. It depends on how long the discussions take.
The people who really care about Gibraltar's interests are not the Conservative party. The real patriots are not the Tories: they are those who recognise that this issue is damaging British interests, as well as those of Gibraltar. The real patriots are those who honestly try to do something about the matter, despite the difficulties, and who are determined to find a solution in the interests of the people whom we represent—our constituents, the people of Britain. The true Brits are those of us who understand that British interests are being damaged by the dispute, and who remain determined to ensure that that damage ends.

Rail Services (North Kent)
12.29 pm
Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the serious matter of channel tunnel rail link domestic services. I have advised you, Mr. Chidgey, and my right hon. Friend the Minister that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) are also hoping to catch your eye and make a brief contribution.
Services are intended to run on the new £5.2 billion channel tunnel rail link when the Ebbsfleet terminal becomes operational in 2007. The reason for securing the debate is that we in Medway believe that the Strategic Rail Authority has failed to understand how fundamental that service is to the Thames gateway strategy. Without improved rail networks between Medway and the capital, the regeneration of north Kent will fall well short of all our expectations.
It is not my intention to present a picture of doom and gloom in respect of north Kent. It has had record levels of new investment, including new hospitals, schools and roads. Most recently, there was an announcement of the expansion of the universities on the Medway campus. There are to be some 6,000 additional students. The Government's commitment to Medway and the rest of north Kent is not in question. Their record to date is one of action. I have listed a few examples, but there are many more. We should not forget that the Government, under the Deputy Prime Minister, rescued the channel tunnel rail link from the financial regime implemented by the Tories. History tells us much about the Tories' record and their economic competence when it comes to running railways.
Medway and north Kent have been transformed since the 1980s, when unemployment rose to nearly 20 per cent. and depression hit hard. They are now areas of growth and low unemployment. However, this debate is about the future of not just my constituents and those of my hon. Friends or the region, but of London and the UK economy as a whole. In the next 20 years, 50,000 new homes will be built throughout north Kent, accommodating 100,000 more people. Some 84,000 new jobs will be created and 22 million sq ft of additional floor space for businesses will be provided.
The scale of change is considerable, so the challenge for all involved is to get it right. The responsibility of those delivering public services is to maximise cooperation and partnerships so that the necessary infrastructure is put in place. That will engender confidence in the private sector so that we can all realise the full potential that north Kent has to offer. One of the key players is and has to be the Strategic Rail Authority, because it will determine whether Medway and other parts of north Kent have a link to the terminal at Ebbsfleet, and so to London. We have serious concerns that that is not the SRA's intention.
I ask the Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister whether we are five years away from the transformation of rail infrastructure for north Kent, and from being able to realise the potential of the gateway, or whether we will fail when the first opportunity arises to lay a foundation stone for new rail
44WH
infrastructure. Will the Government agree to the SRA allowing channel tunnel domestic trains to thunder through Kent and not stop at the largest conurbation in the county—Medway? Let us imagine train after train going through Kent every day and not stopping at Medway, even though all the peak trains on the existing services from Medway are packed to the gunnels. Some 12,500 people board trains in the Medway towns every day. That has gone up in the past year by 4.8 per cent. That trend and growth will continue.
It is necessary to carry out signalling and other infrastructure work to allow new trains to run along the north Kent line and on to Ebbsfleet and London, yet the SRA has only now begun to examine the cost of the work. I say only now because it will begin the tendering process in the autumn. Whoever wins the franchise will be expected to procure the rolling stock, undertake the infrastructure works and run the service. Given the potential for delay, serious anxiety has been expressed that the trains will not be ready on time. The calamity of having brand new track and links but no trains to service can be imagined.
This is not a little, local issue. Only last year, the Government confirmed that the regeneration of north Kent is a regional and national priority. The SRA has yet to advise key partners. including the Government and the Thames gateway Kent partnership, of its thinking about the franchise specification. We do not know where trains for the domestic service will stop or how frequently they will run.
Most alarmingly—this is the key motivator for the debate—all we know is that the franchise concentrates solely on channel tunnel domestic services from St. Pancras, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, with running-off services to Medway and elsewhere, such as Sittingbourne, as optional extras, or add-ons that are nice to have. That is a disastrous prospect. If the only terminal for people in Medway to access is at Ebbsfleet, one can imagine the additional traffic on the M2. The additional infrastructure will not be cheap. The proposals of the SRA in its present guise will dissuade interested commercial operators.
The first stage of the channel tunnel rail link is nearing completion. Throughout the passage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, we in Kent lobbied hard to ensure that there would be domestic services on the link. From our perspective in Kent, it is entirely reasonable that, if we are to bear the brunt—especially through the Medway towns—of a project that will benefit the entire country, there must be some net gain for the largest conurbation. That gain comes from the domestic services.
The issue cannot be seen simply in terms of rail infrastructure. It must be seen in the context of the entire Thames gateway programme. Medway must be connected to the channel tunnel rail link. It cannot be an optional extra in the SRA's franchise; it cannot be a nice-to-have or an add-on. I hope that in responding to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the SRA's franchise will run channel tunnel rail link domestic services through Kent and that there will be an explicit requirement to include the Medway towns and other parts of north Kent.
12.38 pm
Paul Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on having secured this important debate. I thank him, you, Mr. Chidgey, and the Minister for allowing me to contribute.
I bring great news from the heart of Kent. The channel tunnel rail link is on time, on schedule and on budget. Phase 1 is a sight to behold, with the North Downs tunnel, a splendid piece of engineering. The new CTRL Medway bridge has risen from the mists of the river Medway, and the overhead gantries are now shimmering in the sun along the route—at least for this week, while we have the sun. The entire route will be complete by 2007. High-speed trains to and from Paris, Brussels and the mainland continent will never have to trundle through the Kent countryside again. All that will have taken us only 20 years since the passing of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, the largest conurbation in Kent—the Medway towns, of which Gillingham and Rainham are part—could miss out. My constituents could be left on windswept platforms coping with leaves on the line and, of course, the wrong type of snow. That certainly was not the intention of the rail barons of the mid-1990s.
Looking back at Hansard, one sees that in January 1995 the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), said on Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill:
"The Bill provides … for a combined international and domestic passenger station at Ebbsfleet … A connecting line to the north Kent line … will enable trains from the Medway towns to join the link for fast running into St. Pancras."—[Official Report, 16 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 465.]
A year later, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), said:
"Domestic rail travellers will also benefit from the new line…the Government will be reserving capacity on the new line for up to eight domestic trains an hour in the peak period. The new services should start as soon as CTRL is open … The increase in overall rail capacity will help ease congestion".—[Official Report, 29 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 1000.]
I assure you, Mr. Chidgey, that there will be no fast-running services into St. Pancras from Medway, they will not start as soon as CTRL is open. and congestion will not ease for my commuters or for many thousands more in Medway towns and the surrounding area unless there is a reaffirmation of the commitment to the original intention of CTRL domestic services.
We are well aware of the processes that the Strategic Rail Authority must follow. We recognise that there are technical hurdles to overcome in order to supply the services. However, it must be recognised that some of the improvements are already required, such as a power upgrade and improved signalling, to name but two. It would be wrong if those costs were borne in entirety by the successful bidder for the CTRL domestic services franchise.
46WH
As my hon. Friend said, noises emanating from the SRA give the impression that CTRL domestic services to Medway will not be at the forefront of the tendering process in the autumn. Such a decision would on its own be a betrayal of the commuters of Medway and Gravesend—but the issue does not stop there.
Medway is at the heart of the Government's national regeneration area—the Thames gateway. The Government have supported the area investment framework from the Thames gateway Kent partnership, which is a public-private sector organisation that has a vision of transforming north Kent, creating 100,000 new jobs and 50,000 new homes, and building on new inward investment. CTRL domestic services are not only another route into London, but a major catalyst to realising the Government's regeneration dream in north Kent.
Will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to proper CTRL domestic services in north Kent? Will he recognise the importance of the Thames gateway in delivering the Government's regeneration policies? Will he take the opportunity to remind the SRA of the importance of Medway to the whole regeneration project?
12.42 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing this extremely important debate. I can be brief because my task is simply to support both his detailed and careful submissions and the poetic observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark).
I start by addressing the same theme of achievement in the Medway towns. During the past 10 years, the economic aspirations and well-being of the Medway towns have been transformed. Three of the four main priorities that my hon. Friends and I had when we all started our stewardship in 1997 have been all but secured. We have achieved in securing a university base; we used to be the largest conurbation in Europe that did not have a university. We have achieved in securing all the land that is necessary for the regeneration of the post-industrial riverside site, which has disfigured the centre and heart of the Medway towns. We have received multi-million pound investment to improve infrastructure and to release resources from the wealth of Thamesport and the Island of Grain.
Those achievements have occurred for several reasons. The first is that there was an enlightened council during the 1990s. The second, I hope, is some small contribution from the Members of Parliament who represent the Medway towns. The third is multi-million pound investment by the Government in the fortunes of the Medway towns. I say with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he, as much as anyone in the Government, has been a friend of the Medway towns, at both his present and previous Departments.
After that uncharacteristic eulogy, I shall come to the essential problem. I know that my right hon. Friend understands that I am not overstating matters when I say that if we do not get the CTRL infrastructure through to the Medway towns to provide the service into London, all the fruits of that investment will be

47WH
placed in jeopardy. We simply cannot be expected to attract the extra investment in money and skills necessary to take advantage of the steps that we have already made if a third world rail service continues to run into the heart of London from the biggest conurbation in the south-east.
There are two reasons why the CTRL is important. First, there is the economic and commercial importance that we have emphasised. Secondly and almost as importantly, the link is essential to the identity and psychology of the Medway towns. The CTRL, so graphically described in its present state by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, represents an unhappy metaphor for everything that has happened to the Medway towns since the closure of the dockyard—in that it goes straight past and does not stop. At the moment, so far as we can understand from the Strategic Rail Authority, there are no definitive plans for that area to create real benefit from CTRL domestic services.
I know that my right hon. Friend understands our strength of feeling and the importance that we put on the development. He will do the best that he can to ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority is precisely that—an authority for the proper strategy of public service, not for the interests of rail operators.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the channel tunnel rail link and domestic services for north Kent. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I am only grateful that there was no Government Whip present to witness my hon. and learned Friend's favourable comments.
Before I respond on the main issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, it may be helpful if I provide a background to the CTRL project and the benefits that we can expect. The CTRL is a completely new high-speed rail line running for 68 miles between the channel tunnel and London St. Pancras. It will be Britain's first major new railway for more than a century, providing 140 mph running for Eurostar services and fast new domestic services linking Kent with St. Pancras. It will also contribute to regeneration in the Thames gateway, which was rightly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham as an important regional and national priority for growth, and has the potential to make a major contribution to the economy in the south-east around St. Pancras and Stratford, as well as in several areas in Kent.
The CTRL is being built by Union Railways on behalf of London and Continental Railways Ltd. The project was authorised by Parliament with the passage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, although I appreciate the much longer lineage ably described by my colleagues.
48WH
The new high-speed line is being built in two sections. Section 1 runs between the channel tunnel and Fawkham Junction, near Swanley in north-west Kent, where it connects to the existing Railtrack network, to allow Eurostar trains to serve Waterloo. It also includes connections into Ashford International station. Work on section 1 began in October 1998 and it is more than 83 per cent. complete. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham described its physical impressiveness. It is one of the major civil engineering projects in Europe, and is not only on schedule for completion next year but, as he rightly said, a public-private partnership delivering on time and on budget, with enormous technical expertise. It is worth mentioning that, as the media so often focus on public sector projects that fail.
Work began in July 2001 on section 2, which completes the line by extending it from the new rail link in north-west Kent, under the Thames, to London St. Pancras. Section 2 also includes new international stations at Stratford in east London, linking into docklands and Canary wharf, and at Ebbsfleet, providing fast links to Paris and Brussels from docklands and north Kent. Work on that section is due to be completed by the end of 2006. I particularly mentioned the connection of Stratford to Canary wharf because of the huge increase in employment there—some 4,000 extra jobs a month are added.
The Strategic Rail Authority may take over sponsorship of the project in due course. For the moment, that role remains with the Department for Transport. Significant sums of public sector support—totalling approximately £3 billion—are due to be paid to help construct the CTRL. That will help to provide capacity for fast domestic services, which will revolutionise rail services from Ashford, cutting journey times by 30 minutes. I will speak more about the benefits of the CTRL and domestic services in a minute, but first it might be helpful if I speak about the Thames gateway initiative.
The Thames gateway initiative is the largest regeneration initiative in north-west Europe. It has the potential to accommodate 100,000 new homes and 300,000 new jobs over the next 20 years, largely on previously used sites. Fourteen zones of change have been identified in the gateway, in which the new development will be concentrated. The new international passenger stations at Ebbsfleet and Stratford are key economic drivers in two zones—the Kent/Thameside and Stratford /Royals zones—which are together expected to accommodate up to 46,000 new homes and 100,000 jobs. Medway is another key zone in the gateway, as rightly identified by my hon. Friends. It is a free-standing urban area of around 250,000 population, with huge potential for the renaissance of its considerable brownfield land and as a city of culture, tourism, learning and hi-tech industry.
The Government have established a strategic partnership, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Rooker, the Minister for Housing and Planning. It comprises six Ministers and representatives of the three regional development agencies, regional assemblies and sub-regional partnerships, to drive forward regeneration of the Thames gateway. The partnership is providing the framework within which the area's potential as the major focus for growth and development in the southeast can be achieved. The provision of the new

49WH
international and domestic services that will be provided on the CTRL from 2007 is critical to the sustainable development of the Thames gateway.
The benefits of the CTRL are enormous. The new railway will bring major transport and economic benefits, including up to eight Eurostars per hour each way from St. Pancras and, owing to the new railway's greater capacity, the possibility of running twice the number of Eurostars to Paris and Brussels at peak times from St. Pancras. Paris will be two hours 15 minutes from St. Pancras by non-stop Eurostar, compared with the current journey time of two hours 55 minutes from Waterloo. Forty minutes will be cut from the journey time to Brussels, reducing it to two hours.
We estimate that growth in the Thames gateway area will be boosted by the CTR L by fostering additional development estimated to be worth about £500 million. Connections to both the west coast main line and the east coast main line will be built near St. Pancras, thus retaining options for service provision in the long term.
My hon. Friends rightly dwelt on the implications for domestic services and future specifications. The development agreement relating to the channel tunnel rail link provides that the following shall be reserved for domestic services. In peak time, there will be four trains per hour between east Kent and London, two trains per hour between north Kent and London, and two trains per hour between Ebbsfleet and London. Off peak, there will be two trains per hour between east Kent and London and two trains per hour between north Kent and London. Travelling from St. Pancras via the channel tunnel rail link, the physical links with the Railtrack network will be at Ebbsfleet, on to the north Kent line, and at Ashford.
I take on board the remarks made by my hon. Friends on the need for access, especially if the ambitions for the Thames gateway and the surrounding area are to be achieved. We need a balanced development to take advantage of the considerable areas of previously used land—brownfield sites—available for development in the north Kent area.
The plan is to start domestic services in 2007. Domestic passengers will travel on high speed, high-quality Kent express trains that will provide a reduction in journey times and a more reliable service. The channel tunnel rail link stations at St. Pancras, Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford will provide a focus for social and economic regeneration. The quality and speed of international and domestic travel for business and leisure will be transformed, offering a stimulus to many sectors of the local and regional economy.
I turn to the matter of estimated journey times. Trains from Ashford to Ebbsfleet will take 19 minutes. Trains from Ebbsfleet to London non-stop will take 15 minutes
50WH
and, with a stop at Stratford, 18 minutes. Trains from Ashford to London, with stops at Ebbsfleet and Stratford, will take 38 minutes.
The Strategic Rail Authority is working with Railtrack to establish the feasibility of operating the new high-speed trains off the new channel tunnel rail link on the existing Railtrack south-east network, with a view to developing a train service specification and identifying appropriate depot and maintenance facilities for the new rolling stock fleet. This is a complex area, and will involve examination of the power-supply requirements of the new trains. Hon. Members will know that those requirements are already being dealt with through necessary remedial measures. Structural clearances and platform lengths will also be examined. All those areas may involve considerable investment to allow new trains to run on the existing network.
The Strategic Rail Authority is in the planning stage for selecting a domestic operator to run services on the route. The bidding process for the channel tunnel rail link domestic services franchise is planned to start later this year. Through the process, which should be completed by the end of next year, the SRA will seek to select an operator competent to procure the unique high-speed rolling stock that will be required for domestic services on the channel tunnel rail link. That will require synchronising with Eurostar trains, and should follow completion of the route in 2007. The trains will need to be capable of operating at 125 mph, to have fast acceleration, braking characteristics and pressure-sealed doors, and to conform to modern safety standards.
Before I conclude, it might be helpful to give an update on the Connex South Eastern franchise, which runs until 2011. Under the agreement, the company is required to replace all its mark I rolling stock. From the introduction of the new timetables at the beginning of this month, the new class 375s replaced older trains on many of the services on the Ramsgate via Chatham and Hastings lines. There are also plans to introduce metro-style trains on parts of the network. Connex South Eastern has also secured £40 million for expenditure on reliability modifications to its fleet of class 465, 466 and 508 trains. The SRA is in discussion with Connex regarding proposals for an enhanced franchise.
Work is being done, but I fully understand that more needs to be clone to get the channel tunnel rail link up and running. Real progress is being made, and I fully accept my hon. Friends' comments that this is a "once in a generation" opportunity for Kent's railways. It is important to get things right before committing substantial sums of public and private money, and that will be the task of the Strategic Rail Authority. I shall keep a close watch on matters.

Disabled Ex-service Men
1 pm
Mr. Adrian Flook: I am delighted to have secured this debate, which is particularly apt given that this month sees the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the successful campaign to regain the Falklands. We are also commemorating the loss of 255 men, and remembering the many wounded. The conflict cut short the careers of numerous soldiers, Marines and seamen, but many times that number are medically discharged every year. Sadly, the care of such veterans leaves something to be desired, and would be further reduced were it not for the tireless work of organisations such as the South Atlantic Medal Association 82.
I secured this debate to raise the iniquitous treatment of our service men, which has gone on for many years. In my first year as a Member of Parliament, several people walked wounded into my surgery. One 27-year-old former Marine from Norton Manor camp in my constituency had nine years' experience. He was given poor advice and left the corps because of an ankle problem, losing his place at the top of the Ministry of Defence medical treatment list. He now sits at the bottom of the NHS list, and will not be treated for at least a year.
Gulf war veterans who have suffered terribly from Gulf war syndrome have also come to my surgery. This country has not recognised that condition, even though the United States recognised it eight years ago. Indeed, several people are talking to a US congressional delegation elsewhere in the House today. It is perhaps apt that today's edition of The Sun quotes a widow as saying
"the Government takes this seriously, but things take an awful long time".
I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
I particularly want to mention John "Jacko" Jackson and Martin Walkinshaw, who saw service in the Falklands. Through SAMA 82, they help others to rebuild their lives, and they work tirelessly for their fellow south Atlantic veterans. They brought the Benefits Agency's unfair treatment of veterans to my attention.
The common thread in all these issues is that those who serve in our forces are volunteers, who do military service because they love their country and are willing to put their lives on the line. As a result of serving our country, some pay the ultimate price, while others suffer for the rest of lives. The treatment of disabled ex-service men is unfair, given that they never questioned the fact that their country would look after them if they were injured. As one veteran put it to me, quite a few service men at Bagram airport and elsewhere in Afghanistan would have second thoughts about being there if one explained exactly how the welfare system worked against them.
There is a lot wrong with the way in which we treat those who volunteer to defend our country's interests, and I shall concentrate on one aspect in particular. This debate is about raising awareness of the need for greater liaison between Her Majesty's forces and the Benefits Agency so that the agency treats disabled ex-service men more equitably. One good suggestion would be for the
52WH
agency to be represented on resettlement courses for service men who seek to leave the Army, the Marines, the Navy or the Air Force. We must educate the senior non-commissioned officers and warrant officers about the benefits system, because they have immediate responsibility and can help their charges to make the right decisions on leaving the corps, the Army, the Air Force or the Navy.
It appears unjust that service men should be disadvantaged because of the nature of their employment and their lack of contact with the outside world. At the weakest moment of their lives, when they have been medically discharged, more often than not lost their home and their career and are having to plan for their future, they do not know where to turn. Perhaps even more distressing is that many of the people in their world do not know how to get the necessary help for them either.
From an annual turnover of personnel in our services of about 20,000, roughly 1,600 service men are medically discharged. The bulk comes from the Army because it is the largest element of our forces, about a third comes from the Navy, which includes the Marines. and the balance comes from the Air Force. The Department for Work and Pensions informed me that the figure includes about 1,000 cases due to physical ailments—mainly musculo-skeletal problems involving broken bones or damaged ligaments, which make service men unfit for potential combat. Some 10 per cent. are discharged on mental grounds involving various problems that it is probably best for us only to guess at. However, less than half of the total receive incapacity benefit, and I am told that the majority do not satisfy the medical test for the personal capability assessment. Those numbers are not huge in Government terms, but each one represents an individual case where the system is failing to treat an ex-service man fairly. The following example is just one small indicator of the poor way in which we treat our service personnel.
After 28 weeks of sickness before his medical discharge, it is likely that a soldier or a Marine, once discharged, would have to claim incapacity benefit at the short-term, lower rate, whereas his civilian counterpart in, let us say, the Ministry of Defence, could claim it at the higher rate. The difference between the two rates is about £9.50 a week, which is withheld at precisely the time that that ex-soldier or ex-Marine needs support. That is despite the fact that he pays the same class A and class D national insurance contributions and the same level of income tax. As I am sure the Minister will tell us in detail, one reason for that among many is that that soldier or Marine would never have received statutory sick pay.
In recent weeks, much effort has been made to acknowledge that there is a problem. That is due to the tireless work of John "Jacko" Jackson, who works for the Benefits Agency in Bridgwater near my constituency and is an active member of SAMA 82. Recently, there has been much movement towards resolving the matter, but that has not always been the case. In response to a letter from Mr. Jackson, a civil servant at the then Department of Social Security wrote in March 1999:
"When sick, there is not the usual need for income replacement as when in Civvy street, and the services provide for their basic needs and have their own medical services outside the NHS."

53WH
It is a common gripe among service personnel that those services outside the NHS are no longer what they were. I would say that that civil servant was harking back to former days.
In 1999, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), then Secretary of State for Social Security, wrote a letter to Tom King, the then Member of Parliament for Bridgwater, stating:
"Whilst it is right that servicemen should have proper access to Incapacity Benefit, I am not convinced there is a compelling need to make changes in this area of provision to enable earlier access to higher rates of incapacity benefit".
Those attitudes from three years ago might go some way to explaining the initial lack of progress.
When researching for this debate, the feedback that I received from the Ministry of Defence was that there were only a dozen or so such cases every year. I am sure that that was just a flippant remark from a civil servant, but it adequately demonstrates the nature of the problem and why it has taken the indefatigable work of people such as Jacko Jackson to get the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions publicly to announce that they are willing to try to do something. That announcement shows that things have moved on.
I acknowledge the positive letter written by the Minister on 8 June, which stated:
"I have asked officials from both the MOD and the DWP to try and find a suitable way for implementing the relevant legislative changes so that the anomaly might be removed with effect from April 2003"—
one year away. However, by way of caveat, he goes on to say:
"we are by no means assured of success."
I would appreciate the Minister's views on where the pitfalls may lie in the ensuing 10 months or so.
In that letter, the Minister continues:
"those personnel who want additional cover for injury or incapacity resulting from service in the armed forces have access to commercial schemes."
Sadly, he adds that the PAX scheme was closed to new applicants after the way in which our country responded to the events of 11 September. I regard that as scant compensation for many in SAMA 82 and for those service men who were willing to put their lives on the line for their country and now expect their country to repay that debt. They expect their country, rather than the corporation, to be there for them.
I acknowledge that the MOD has been proactive, but I would have liked to have seen a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions here today. Every week for the past 20 or 30 weeks, I have tried to secure a debate entitled "Treatment by the Benefits Agency of Disabled Ex-service Men", so it is surprising—although I was told in advance—that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence will respond to the debate.
Why has it taken three years to highlight and bring to fruition something that should have been sorted out many years earlier, especially when the Government accept that there is a problem that needs solving? This is an example of how our service men our treated, and it demonstrates that they are treated less fairly than those who wear suits and do not, at least in the same way, lay their lives on the line for their country. I am glad that the
54WH
debate has highlighted the plight of those who are medically discharged and who are unfairly treated compared with their civilian counterparts. We are a wealthy, well ordered country, and we should be able to sort things out more quickly. It is three years since John "Jacko" Jackson first wrote to the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions.
I acknowledge that the Veterans' Affairs Secretariat is doing its bit, but it could help further by having a dedicated armed forces liaison officer, perhaps jointly funded by the MOD, but certainly funded by some Department, who could train senior NCOs and warrant officers on what is available to those individuals who are considering leaving the forces or who are having that decision made for them. It is a pity that it has taken the Government three years to say that they are keen to resolve the issue, but too many of the Minister's words in the letters that I have seen are conditional on other Whitehall Departments getting their act together. I acknowledge that the MOD has made some great strides, but I seek cast-iron assurances from the Minister and his colleagues in the MOD that the work will be done by next April.
A broader problem remains in society, however, because we do not always adequately reflect on what these individuals do for us and for our country. The work of organisations such as the Royal British Legion, which supports the campaign, the Seamen, Soldiers, Air Force Association, BLESSMA and SAMA 82, which brought the matter to my attention, shows us that, as a society, we are not doing enough for those who are medically discharged. At a time of particular difficulty in recruiting and retaining service men in our professional Army, we are sending out the wrong message about how society will look after those who are badly injured in the service of Queen and country.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I thank the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) for giving us the opportunity to consider the treatment of disabled ex-service men and women. Many people have no direct experience of military service, and it is easy to lose sight of the sacrifices made by many of those who served in our armed forces, as well as by their families. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the practical support and benefits provided to ex-service men and women who are incapacitated by illness or disability.
The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised relates primarily to incapacity benefit as it affects armed forces personnel. I have been dealing with that in my capacity as Minister for Veterans, which is why I agreed that I should give the Government's response rather than a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions, as would normally have been the case. To use the standard cliché, it could be described as joined-up government. In case Ministers from other Departments are listening, I should add that the presence of the word "veteran" in the title of future debates will not necessarily guarantee that the Minister for Veterans will reply. However, I take a keen interest in the matter, and it is important that I continue with it.
Before I go into detail, I would like to pay tribute to all those who have been disabled or bereaved as a result of service to the country in the armed forces. The

55WH
Government fully recognise the debt of gratitude owed to all those who made such sacrifices. I pay tribute also to the valuable work carried out by the volunteer and charitable ex-service organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Incapacity benefit is a flat-rate national insurance benefit that is intended to provide a basic non-means-tested income to people who are incapacitated by illness or disability. As such, it takes no account of a person's particular financial needs. Incapacity benefit replaced sickness benefit and invalidity benefit in April 1995. The main test of entitlement to state incapacity benefits is the personal capability assessment, which sets a threshold of incapacity that must be met in order to qualify for state incapacity benefits.
The incapacity threshold looks at the effect of an illness or disability on a person's ability to perform a range of functions related to capacity for work. Until the medical test is completed, people receiving incapacity benefit must supply medical certificates from their general practitioner. As the hon. Gentleman said, incapacity benefit is paid at three rates: the short-term lower rate payable for the first 28 weeks, which is currently £53.50; the short-term higher rate payable between weeks 28 and 52, which is now £63.25; and the long-term rate payable after 52 weeks, which is now £70.95. Most employees will receive statutory sick pay from their employers for the first 28 weeks of their absence from work. At the end of the 28 weeks, employees may claim state incapacity benefit and receive the short-term higher rate if they satisfy the contribution conditions.
While in service, armed forces personnel continue to receive full pay. However, they are unable to claim incapacity benefit until they leave the service. If they qualify for incapacity benefit on discharge, they will therefore start at the short-term lower rate of incapacity benefit. That contrasts with the position of the rest of the population, whose time spent receiving statutory sick pay—up to 28 weeks—counts towards the short-term higher rates straight away.
The rationale for the current arrangements is that service personnel who are sick continue to receive full pay and allowances until they are discharged on medical grounds. Most receive generous occupational pensions following discharge. In addition, the armed forces control their own arrangements for certifying and dealing with sickness, which means that there is no direct link with the state schemes and the GP medical certification arrangements that underpin it. Therefore, if members of the armed forces leave due to ill health and make successful claims for incapacity benefit, the regulations result in them receiving incapacity benefit at the lower short-term rate, rather than the higher rate, for their first 28 weeks as civilians. That is because their time spent on sick leave for the previous 28 weeks could not be taken into account.
Given that social security legislation will continue to exempt members of the armed forces from the need to claim incapacity benefit while they are in the services, we shall be looking to put members of the armed forces on an equal footing with the civilian population by counting the first 28 weeks of sickness as if it had been a period of statutory sick pay.
56WH
Further, the numbers affected by those arrangements are small. The last full year for which we have figures is for April 2000 to April 2001, when there were 1,580 medical discharges from the armed forces. The Navy has by far the most, the Army is second and the Royal Air Force has fewer than 200. Of the total, about 1,000 cases resulted from a disease. The rest were due to trauma. Of the diseases, musculo-skeletal conditions comprised half, with about 150 mental health cases.
Medical staff from the Surgeon-General's department have estimated that less than half of all medical dischargees would claim incapacity benefit and that the majority would probably not satisfy the personal-capability assessment. Despite the fact that the changes were made in 1995, the anomaly was brought to our attention only in 1999 by the organisations and Mr. Jackson. The current policy has been in place for many years. We would be keen to hear details of cases when veterans have been affected by the differing ranges of incapacity benefit, but none has been forthcoming so far. That is why the hon. Gentleman was given what sounded like a flippant reply from a civil servant; there would be few such cases. In reality, I hope that there are a few cases in which such action would take place, although I accept that there is a theoretical risk.
Mr. Flook: Does the Minister accept none the less that, by the time people work out that they may be entitled to extra benefits, time will have passed on? It is the nature of service men that they do not tend to complain about things in the past—or else many of them would not have turned up in the first place.
Dr. Moonie: I accept that absolutely. Despite the small numbers involved, we are determined to press ahead with the change. We acknowledge that the discrepancy should be rectified to allow days of service when sick to count towards satisfying the 25 weeks' requirement. I regret to say that any changes to the system, however small, will require either an amendment to legislation or complex regulations. They require changes to forms, guidance and training for Jobcentre Plus staff, not to mention computer systems—changes to which are not made lightly. It is not realistic to introduce the change quickly.
I should like to take the opportunity to explain the Government's changes to pension income rules over the past year. as they, too, have led to some discussion. Since 6 April 2001, the amount of incapacity benefit payable to a person who has a pension income is reduced by half the value of the pension in excess of £85 a week. That reflects the fact that many people now receive a pension income before they reach state pension age. The rules for incapacity benefit were brought up to date to reflect significant changes that have occurred in society since benefits for incapacity were first introduced.
The previous rules covering incapacity benefit ignored the fact that many people retired early and had occupational and personal pensions. For example, in 1953, only 28 per cent. of people received an occupational pension. Today, 86 per cent. of men in full-time work are members of an occupational or personal pension scheme, as are 77 per cent. of women who are in full-time work and 35 per cent. of women who are in part-time work. The changes affect those with the

57WH
highest incomes. The rules for taking account of pension income in incapacity benefit mirror the rules for taking account of such income in the contributions-based element of jobseeker's allowance. However, there is a much more generous disregard: £85 as against £50 in jobseeker's allowance. Additionally, the regulations provide that only 50 per cent. of pension income over that amount is taken into account.
Personal pension income includes occupational pensions paid on cessation of employment. Armed forces service pensions paid on cessation of service are occupational pensions and are treated in the same way as other occupational pensions. That applies equally to both service-invaliding pensions, which are paid after medical injury, regardless of condition or injury or whether it happened on or off duty, and to service-attributable pensions, which are paid when the condition or injuries are attributable to, or aggravated by, service. However, war pensions paid because of disablement are paid whether or not employment in the armed services is continuing. For that reason, they are not included as pension payments. I hope that that explanation is more clear than it sounded.
When considering the legislation, the Government took the view that pension income from all sources should be included, whether provided through an occupational pension scheme, additional voluntary contributions or a private pension. To introduce a disregard for the armed forces, while continuing to take account of occupational pensions for the police and fire services, would be inequitable. The regulations provide that only pension income that a person is actually receiving is taken into account. If people choose to forgo some or all of their pension until a future date, their incapacity benefit will not be affected by the amount forgone. Pension changes apply only to new claims made for a period on or after 6 April 2001.
This is probably the first time that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence has dealt with a question about the service provided by the Benefits Agency. I welcome the opportunity because it provides a powerful illustration that the veterans initiative is working. The initiative arose from one of the wider themes of the Parliament—public sector reform aimed at achieving a co-ordinated approach and an integrated policy across government. Those words are easy for Ministers to use, but are much more difficult to deliver on.
Until now, veterans' concerns have tended to be dealt with on a single-issue basis by the responsible Department or within local government. Because of the Government's determination to provide a co-ordinated Government focus for veterans' concerns, on 14 March last year the Prime Minister announced that I would also be responsible for ensuring that veterans' issues were properly understood, appropriately prioritised and effectively addressed across Government. The appointment of a Minister for Veterans demonstrates clear recognition by Government of the special status of the ex-service community and the unique contribution that they have made to the nation.
58WH
Three main priorities were identified for the initiative. First, we must pull together the Government's response to issues that cut across Departments, such as the assistance that is provided to address homelessness or ill health. Secondly, we must ensure that lessons learned are absorbed into the MOD's planning. We need to make sure that we have the right preventative measures in place to minimise later problems such as service lost to injury or illness, and to respond adequately to the challenges of operational stress and resettlement.
Thirdly, we should co-ordinate communication by publicising and demonstrating the full range of assistance offered to veterans by central and local government. That would ensure both that the Government receive credit for what they do and that veterans' organisations have the opportunity to represent their collective and individual concerns to the Government at ministerial level.
The issue of changes to the discrepancy in payments of incapacity benefits for armed forces and air personnel has been discussed in detail by the two new cross-cutting groups set up to help me in my work—the veterans forum and the veterans taskforce. At our last meeting in May, Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions agreed in principle to make the change. Unfortunately, they have been unable to give it a higher priority in their heavy modernisation programme because of other priorities for work with much more wide-reaching results. A clarification is being sought from the Department for Work and Pensions' legal team about whether such a change will need primary legislation, or whether changes to regulations will suffice. The timing of the change can therefore not yet be estimated.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Gulf war syndrome. I should like to correct a misapprehension that appears to have crept into the minds of those who write articles in the press about it. It will not affect the pension paid to any of our ex-service men by one penny if the illness is classified—in my opinion wrongly—as Gulf war syndrome, or if it is classified as something else. Our pensions are paid according to the degree of disability that people are suffering. The labelling of their condition has absolutely nothing to do with it. Some inflated claims have been made by journalists who really should know better, given the effort that we have put into trying to convince them in the past year or two. Pensions are paid according to disability, which is as it should be. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that; I was not suggesting that he did not.
The House will understand that whatever benefits our ex-service men and women receive, it can never be enough to repay the sacrifice of those who risked their health and well-being to defend their country. I hope that the report that this welcome debate has enabled me to present to the House gives some assurance about the progress being made by the veterans initiative to ensure that those who have given so much receive the benefits to which they are entitled. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall keep a very close eye on the matter, and that the changes will be brought in as soon as is practicable.

Unadopted Roads
1.29 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I wish to return to the subject of unadopted roads—or private roads, as they are sometimes called—which was raised in the previous Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I will not go into the minutiae of the legal position on adopted roads, as that is reasonably well known by people who have explored this arcane subject, and it was run through at length in the debate five years ago. Instead, I wish to draw attention to ways in which we might address a problem that is genuinely held to be significant by many people, and to give a couple of examples.
It is thought that there are about 4,000 miles of unadopted roads in this country. However, that figure might be incorrect; there has not been a survey on the subject for 50 years so. At present, we do not know enough to query it. Later in the debate, I will suggest that we should do something to address that lack of recent information.
There are 31 unadopted roads in Swadlincote, which is a small, ex-mining town of 35,000 people in my constituency. Some of those roads are of considerable significance; they play an important role in the highway network, as they often link two adopted highways, and are used as through-routes by people who do not live along them. That can cause considerable nuisance for the people who do live alongside such roads. They face several problems. They have to bear the cost of maintaining the road—until it becomes dangerous, at which point the local authority can assist. Unauthorised parking can be a problem, and they have almost no recourse to deal with that. They also have the problem of people dumping cars and rubbish. They can be subject to a claim by a person who has an accident on the road, if it can he shown that they could reasonably have done something about it. Those are regular causes of concern and expense to the people who live along such roads.
However, it must be acknowledged that most people who have bought houses in such roads are aware that they have also bought those liabilities. I shall explore ways in which we could deal with that, because they have something to gain from rectifying this situation, so the cost of the solution to it should not be wholly—or even largely—paid by the public.
How big is the problem? It would be helpful if, for the first time in 50 years, we tried to find out how many unadopted roads there are in this country, and how long they are. As I have said, the last survey was done in 1960. We now have an opportunity to collect new data, which would help us to identify the scale of the difficulty that we face.
Ms Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. David Chidgey (In the Chair): Order. Under the rules of the House, it is necessary for hon. Members who wish to intervene to give prior notice to the hon.
60WH
Member who has secured the Adjournment debate and the Minister who is responding, and for both of them to give their agreement to those interventions.
Mr. Todd: My hon. Friend has spoken to me.
Mr. David Chidgey (In the Chair): If the hon. Gentleman and the Minister agree to accept the intervention, the Chair has no objection.
Ms Walley: I am most grateful. Unadopted alleyways have also long been a matter for concern. With regard to my hon. Friend's call for a survey, does he agree that it is equally important to get a sense of how many unadopted alleyways there are, and to find the funds to make them up?
Mr. Todd: With regard to unadopted roads, one of my concerns is non-vehicular access. Alma road in Newhall is a link between two adopted roads. Unadopted roads are an important part of the pedestrian network of the town, which is of equal concern to the Government. It is also important to keep those safe and free from nuisance and hazard, so I understand the point made.
Data collected could recognise the cost of contributions towards unadopted roads in the local government funding formula. Some people think that there is no public cost for unadopted roads, but the public purse bears a liability when it can be shown that there is a danger. Regularly within Swadlincote, small contributions are made towards dealing with large potholes appearing in unadopted roads. That is a cost to local government, and it would be reasonable to recognise such roads in the funding formula as a cost to the public purse.
Such recognition would also help to strengthen the identity between the local authority and the residents of unadopted roads, which is currently sadly lacking. Most local authorities take the robust view that they are not generally a matter for their concern unless someone is likely to be badly hurt.
Until the poll tax and then the council tax were introduced, living in an unadopted road was recognised in the bill paid to the local authority—it affected the rateable value of one's house and therefore the rates bill. That is no longer the case, except if one lives on the cusp of a council tax band, when the difference in valuation between a property in an undadopted road and one in a normal road would be significant in tipping the balance into a different band valuation. There is a strong argument for giving a discount to residents of unadopted roads on the part of the council tax bill relating to the highway authority. It should not be a large discount, because such residents use the rest of the road network. Nevertheless, they feel that they do not get any value for the money that they pay the council for maintaining the roads outside their houses, and that should be reflected in how much they pay towards their local authority's costs.
Obviously, highway authorities, especially in the past 10 or 15 years, have found it increasingly difficult to do anything much about unadopted roads. In my area, the last unadopted road that was improved—John street, Swadlincote in 1995—was the last one that the local council was prepared to contemplate. The Minister will

61WH
surely deal with this matter in his response, but I understand that local authorities can choose to spend their money on unadopted roads should they feel that they are a high priority. At the moment, however, most find that there are many other calls on their purses besides the individual needs of relatively small numbers of citizens, however acute that need may be. Certainly, the retort from a Derbyshire county council spokesman on the local radio this morning was typical: he said that people knew what they were getting into when they bought the property, so it is tough on them. Such a robust approach would not cut much ice with many of the residents, who feel that they pay substantial amounts of council tax and expect higher levels of service. It is not, however, an untypical answer.
Caroline Flint: In my experience, many people living on unadopted roads recognise their responsibility. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents need a solution whereby costs could be made affordable by spreading payment over a period of time, as was suggested in a letter to me last August from the Minister who formerly had responsibility for the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)?
Mr. Todd: Indeed, I shall turn to that exact issue. As I said, local authorities have many calls on their budgets and I understand why the issue would have low priority. However, I have approached other bodies.
I mentioned with intent that Swadlincote is a former coalfield town, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will agree that the problem is especially prevalent in such communities. Often, the towns and villages were built without the great care and attention to utilities and public services that we would expect these days. I have put it to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust that a perfectly good use of its resources would he the provision of a small amount towards environmental improvements based on the adoption of unadopted roads, because that would lead to a significant environmental gain. An unadopted road, through no fault of its owners, often attracts the worst possible nuisances, such as abandoned cars and rubbish. The adoption of such roads would have a wider impact than the benefit of the individuals who live along them. I would welcome the Government's support in drawing the benefit of that opportunity to the attention of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and other bodies that provide funds for coalfields communities. A pump-priming approach would help.
I turn to funding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, some works involve a substantial cost. The family who appeared on the radio with me this morning live on Vicarage road in Woodville. I guess that it would cost about £100,000 to adopt that road. I am afraid that most people who live on unadopted roads—the phrase "private roads" gives the impression of exclusivity and poshness—in my area are generally people without substantial means to contribute to large-scale capital schemes.
A method of dealing with the problem has been explored in correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley shared with me. I have also received a similar letter in response to my inquiry. That method is to allow the cost of the scheme to be spread
62WH
over several years and to be set against the value of the property on such a road when sold. It is undoubtedly true that the improvement of an unadopted road makes a significant difference to the value of a property, and a householder making such an investment would experience a good return. That approach should be commended to local authorities.
I have a small query about how local authorities account for a debt that is not recoverable for several years. Is there an acceptance of that funding mechanism? Will the Minister tell us whether that method of deferring a payment for up to 30 years and holding the payment against the value of the sale of the property is acceptable and commendable to local authorities?
A cash flow difficulty would be caused by the initial payment to fund the scheme. In most cases, the costs are significant, and if the money were not recovered for many years, the council would face a cash shortfall, which would take money from other services. That is why I have suggested co-operation with other agencies to blunt the edge of the cash flow problem. I want a capital fund to be established that would be available for such projects. That could be drawn down to allow projects to proceed, and as money was repaid to the fund, it could finance further qualifying projects. Such a scheme would encourage local authorities to support a solution to the problem rather than giving it a low priority because they believe that people knowingly buy into the problem by purchasing an affected property. People deserve a higher quality response that offers a way ahead. I hope that some of my suggestions will help to relieve that difficulty, and will provide a solution for hundreds of my constituents and many thousands of people throughout the country.
1.44 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for having raised the issue. It is a matter of concern not only in his constituency but elsewhere, especially in the north and midlands and in many of our traditional industrial towns. In answer to one of his queries, my advice is that 1972 is the latest year for which figures are available, when there were estimated to be about 40,000 such private streets throughout England and Wales, amounting to some 4,500 miles.
Mr. Todd: The 1972 figures are merely an extrapolation on the 1960 data collection. We have not collected the data since 1960. In 1972, someone estimated what might happen in the intervening 12 years.
Mr. Spellar: That was the advice that I received.
In 1990, it was estimated that it would cost more than £2 billion to make up all private streets for adoption. Given the slow rate of local authorities' making up private streets, it is unlikely that the figure has reduced much since, although I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) about alleyways. I have encountered the problem in Smethwick, in my constituency, too.
It might help if I set out the background of private street works law. A private street is a highway that is not maintainable at public expense by a highway authority.

63WH
The Highway Act 1835 introduced a provision under which, for a street to become publicly maintainable, the responsible public authority must deliberately resolve to adopt it. Nowadays, that authority will usually be the local highway authority in the case of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, for example, Derbyshire county council. In general, responsibility for maintaining a private street will fall to the owners of the properties adjoining it—known as frontages—who are also legally liable to meet the expenses that the council incurs in making up the street for adoption. As a result, as he said, a significant number are likely to be in a poor state of repair.
Part XI of the Highways Act 1980 contains what is known as the private street works code, under which a street works authority can resolve to make up a private street at any time. After the works, the street is usually adopted. The authority may apportion the expenses of making up the street among the frontages by reference to the frontage lengths of individual properties. However, it may also modify the apportionments if it has resolved in advance to take account of the extent of benefit, if any, that individual properties derive from the works. In addition, the authority may, if it sees fit, contribute to the cost of the scheme itself.
Provision is made for property owners to object to their apportionments if they choose to do so. In the last resort they can appeal to the Secretary of State against the sum demanded. That is the extent of the Department's involvement in individual cases.
Caroline Flint: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the advice of the former Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), that a local authority may proceed with making up a road for adoption after consultation and that that does not require unanimity among the residents?
Mr. Spellar: I hope to come to that later.
I now turn to local authorities' discretion to contribute from their own resources. Local authorities have the power to moderate street works charges in four ways. First, as I said, they may take account of the extent of benefit received. They would use that power in order to reduce the charge payable by a householder with a long-flank frontage who may receive little or no benefit from the works. They may make up the difference themselves, rather than re-apportioning the cost among frontages.
Secondly, they may allow payments by instalments. Thirdly, in cases of hardship, the authority may waive reimbursement of the principal sum due until the property is sold and in the meantime recover from the householder the interest on the outstanding charge only, to which my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) alluded. Finally, local authorities have a general discretion to bear all or part of the cost of a scheme.
In that context, it is worth noting that local authorities have the power to use proceeds from the sale of assets—generally 25 per cent. in the case of council houses and 100 per cent. in the case of most other
64WH
receipts—on capital expenditure of any kind in any year. It is then for authorities themselves to determine how those usable capital receipts are spent, in the light of local priorities and circumstances.
On 12 June, we announced a draft local government Bill, which proposes to give authorities new freedoms to respond to the needs of their local communities. The Bill includes a new capital borrowing system, which means that authorities will be free to borrow without the Government's consent as long as they can afford the debt. Authorities will be able to use their revenues to finance additional borrowing and that will give them greater autonomy and responsibility for their own decisions in making capital investment. Although local authorities have the power to make payments, I accept that they might not necessarily wish to do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said, there is no doubt that many who live on private streets—particularly those whose houses have long frontages that make them liable to correspondingly high charges—see their liability to pay for private street works charges as unfair. Obviously, I have sympathy for those for whom the charges create a degree of hardship, but liability for street works appear in the local land charges register and should therefore be—and in many cases has been—taken into account in the purchase price of the house. Many householders have already paid for having their own streets made up and might well feel aggrieved at a decision to make the service free to future users—especially in residential roads where the benefits will be enjoyed almost entirely by householders and their visitors rather than by the public at large.
My hon. Friend informed me in advance of the debate of several points of interest to him, several of which he raised earlier. I shall address those points now. First, he suggested that the Government's formula for calculating local authorities' highway maintenance allocations be changed to reflect the length of unadopted roads in each authority area. That option may seem attractive, but many authorities do not have legal responsibility for such roads.
My hon. Friend also suggested allowing residents of unadopted roads a discount on their council tax. However, council tax is essentially a means of contributing to the cost of providing a range of services throughout a local area rather than a specific charge for particular services used or enjoyed directly by individual households. That argument has been used in other contexts.
Council tax represents about 25 per cent. of local government revenue, with the rest provided by Government grant, non-domestic rates, parking fees and rents. At present, there are no specific reductions for residents of households where responsibility for roads and other services have not been adopted, but neither are there reductions for other groups, such as those who do not have children at school, own a car or currently require social services.
Mr. Todd: The Minister expands a familiar argument. I draw to his attention the fact that provision for schools and social services exists and it is up to citizens whether to use them, but that does not apply to the provision for a road outside someone's house.
Mr. Spellar: That argument may not appeal to the constituent who does not have children and who sees the

65WH
percentage of council tax that is spent on local education. The level of a household's bill depends primarily on the valuation band to which the dwelling has been assigned. The provision of facilities is a factor that may influence the valuation band in which a property is placed.
As to extra capital funding for unadopted roads, transport capital funding is made available through local transport plans and is provided in two forms. For approved schemes—those of a gross cost exceeding £5 million—resources are provided out of specific ring-fenced funds for the scheme in question and cannot be used for other purposes. For smaller, integrated transport measures—those under the £5 million mark—and for road maintenance, resources are provided as a single, block allocation, and authorities have the discretion to spend that in line with the aims, objectives and priorities established in their plans.
The Government's commitment to improving transport provision after years of under-investment is reflected in the £8.4 billion package that we announced to implement the first five-year transport plans. The £1.3 billion allocation announced for the first year of the plans—2001–02—is more than double the previous year's funding. The Government's introduction of local government transport plans demonstrates that we believe that local government, not central Government, is best placed to address the issues faced by communities, which is why the authorities have the discretion to utilise the capital resources to reflect those local circumstances and priorities.
On making road-adoption schemes part of wider coalfield regeneration projects and obtaining funding from third parties, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is solely funded by Government money and was not set up to provide funding for large capital infrastructure projects. It is an independent charitable trust, and its priorities are to get people back to work using education, training and community enterprise.
66WH
However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire may want to confirm with the trust the position in his area.
My hon. Friend also asked whether there were accounting barriers to an authority allowing a householder to defer the costs to which he or she is liable for bringing a road up to maintainable standards until the property was sold. That question was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, and I am not aware of any obvious barriers. In such circumstances, the authority would in effect be making a loan to the householder, and the capital financial system does not place restrictions on such activities. The authority would simply need to show the outstanding sums on its balance sheets as amounts owing to it. I hope that that assists my hon. Friends.
As I said earlier, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire for raising this issue. That said, the existing system has enough flexibility to allow sensible decisions to be taken, and I hope that what I have said will meet some, if not all, of his concerns.
Ms Walley: In view of my right hon. Friend's comments about the possible role of the coalfields regeneration trust, does he agree that if the trust were able to assist in some way, it could play a tremendous role in local regeneration and help to achieve its three prime objectives? Will he support us and make that approach to the trust?
Mr. Spellar: Obviously, we would have to examine the resources that are available to the trust and the current demands on it. Local circumstances may make that more likely in some areas than in others, but I undertake to examine that point and see what progress can be made.
We have touched briefly on some of the issues, and if any of my hon. Friends wants to write to me on specific questions, I shall examine them and answer the points in further detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much private finance will be brought in under the proposal for company limited by guarantee made by Network Rail; and in what areas this money is budgeted to be spent; [60652]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed funding arrangement for the successor to Railtrack, as given by the proposal for a company limited by guarantee made by Network Rail; and if he will make a statement. [60651]

  Mr. Darling
  Negotiations are continuing on a commercially confidential basis with Network Rail.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been(a) lent, (b) granted and (c) guaranteed to Railtrack by the Government and SRA since Railtrack was placed in administration. [58014]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 742W.

  (b) Railtrack plc received a grant of £162 million on

  16 November 2001 and £493 million on 1 April 2002 as part of Appendix D of the Rail Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and the 1 April 2001 agreement between the Government and Railtrack.

  (c) As announced on 25 March 2002, the Administrators of Railtrack plc have secured up to £4.4 billion of commercial banking facilities, backed by a Government guarantee. This has enabled them to repay the short-term commercial loan that Government provided on 7 October 2001.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on maintenance by Railtrack in each of the last five years; and if he will publish the expected expenditure on maintenance for the(a) current and (b) next year. [60654]

  Mr. Darling
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Financial year

  Maintenance expenditure in £million cash

  1996–97

  732

  1997–98

  702

  1998–99

  694

  1999–2000

  663

  180W

  Financial year

  Maintenance expenditure in £ million cash

  2000–01

  715

  2001–02

  1943

  2002—03

  21,112

  1 projected

  2 budget

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the results of the enhanced basic questionnaire for prospective Railtrack contractors will be made available to the public. [62443]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 788W [60599].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what maintenance delivery and other improvements are being followed up by Railtrack in line with the Cullen report. [62446]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 786W [60602].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department is represented on the Railtrack Safety Executive; [62455]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the programme of safety tours that the Chief Executive Officer of Railtrack undertakes; [62454]

  (3) what meetings his Department has had with Railtrack officials since the Southall rail accident. [62441]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 784W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the steps to be completed by Railtrack to comply with the recommendations of the Cullen report into the Ladbroke Grove rail inquiry, indicating the timescales for these activities and the costs involved; [62442]

  (2) if he will publish the results of the development of a corporate training and development strategy by Railtrack, as outlined in the Cullen report. [62456]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 786W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the deferred timescales for Railtrack for the revised selection process for prospective contractors. [62444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 788W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 10 strategic maintenance principles developed by Railtrack that involve Railtrack directly managing inspection, appraisal and key work decisions. [62445]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, columns 786–87W.
  181W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility to ensure that(a) Railtrack and (b) its successor company carry out all necessary maintenance work on the rail network. [60647]

  Mr. Darling
  It is for a network operator to comply with the terms and conditions of its network licence. Enforcement of licence conditions is a matter for the Rail Regulator. Additionally the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcement of safety matters on the railway.

  Railways
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 778W, on railways, how much of the money provided by the SRA (a) will be spent in Scotland and (b) has been spent so far. [62064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a national initiative. Funding is not being allocated geographically. No money has yet been spent.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the condition of the railway track on the line between Liverpool Street and Colchester. [58992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Track condition is an operational matter for Railtrack. Railtrack and their contractor, Balfour Beatty have inspected this line and have assured my Department that this line is safe. The Health and Safety Executive have also said that the line is safe.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposals for establishment of a railway industry safety body; and if he will place the consultation papers in the Library. [62440]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 784W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the development group meetings of key stakeholders of the rail industry safety body will be available to the public. [62452]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, columns 784–85W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the initiatives and management systems that the rail industry use to ensure employee involvement in safety issues. [62453]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 785W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the terms of reference, term of office and the job description for the successful candidate applying for the position of director in Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. [62449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 789W.
  182W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for non-completion of recommendations 4, 6, 9 and 72 of the Cullen report into the Ladbroke Grove rail inquiry; and what the timetable is for their completion; [62438]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the local management teams that monitor the implementation of contracts for the rail industry. [62448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 786W [60604].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the shortcomings in the scope of contract documentation reported in the Cullen report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. [62447]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 786W [60603].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the primary legislation required to set up the Railway Advisory Investigation Branch will be published. [62451]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 784W [60607].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on details regarding the timescale, terms of reference and costing of the consultation exercise on the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation body. [62439]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002 Official Report, column 785W [60595].

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the terms of reference are for the two additional members of the Railway Industry Advisory Committee; and from which areas nominations will be accepted. [62450]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, columns 789–90W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budgetary provision has been made for compensating train operating companies for increases in track access charges determined by the Rail Regulator in the current and future control periods. [62978]

  Mr. Spellar
  Payments made to train operating companies by the Strategic Rail Authority under franchise agreements are automatically adjusted by the amount of any change in fixed track access charges determined by the Rail Regulator. For the current control period the amount of 10-year plan funding committed to the rail industry was set, and subsequently adjusted, to reflect the (October 2000) final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges. For future control periods, track access charges will be determined by future periodic reviews.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the SRA about improving the skills level on the railways; and will he make a statement. [62033]
  183W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA, in conjunction with DfES, is taking forward work identified in the Framework for Skills in the Rail industry, published in March last year. The first progress report was published in December. The SRA is also leading on proposals for a National Rail Academy, to take a strategic overview of skills in the rail industry. It will be working closely with other key stakeholders and aims to consult widely on the proposals in the autumn.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60749]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002.

  Aviation Industry
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he makes of the environmental cost resulting from aviation industry use of UK airports. [60432]

  Mr. Darling
  The then DETR reported on available estimates of environmental costs in "Valuing the External Costs of Aviation", which was published in December 2000. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from aviation over the next 20 years. [60430]

  Mr. Darling
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides forecasts of carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft over the next 20 years and beyond for a range of scenarios. They can be found in figure 1 on page 6 of their report "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere" (1999). These estimates are generally accepted to be the best currently available.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the change in fuel efficiency of aircraft, using UK airports, over the last 30 years. [60428]

  Mr. Darling
  Specific information on fuel efficiency of aircraft using UK airports is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Aviation industry representatives estimate that global fuel consumption per passenger kilometre has been reduced by about 60 per cent. since 1970, largely through improvements in engine and airframe technology. Reasons for these improvements include more stringent standards as well as commercial initiatives.

  NATS
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the assumptions used to set the five-year price cap regime for NATS in 2001. [60657]

  Mr. Darling
  National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is subject to price regulation by the RPI-X method, which is the standard model for monopoly regulation in the United Kingdom. The charge cap, or "X" factor, for the first five 184W
  years of the public private partnership (PPP) was set by the Government, in the light of advice received from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

  The CAA's advice on the charge cap was based on a well-considered and comprehensive analysis of NATS' operational and investment plans and the potential for efficiency savings. The advice fully reflected the Government's, and the CAA's, commitment to giving the highest priority to safety.

  The CAA recommended that the "X" factor for NATS' UK monopoly services be set at 5 per cent. per year for each of the first five years. The Government considered this advice carefully, alongside representations from NATS and the projections of bidders for the NATS PPP, and decided to set charge capping at 2.2 per cent. for 2001, 3.0 per cent. for 2002, 4.0 per cent. for 2003, and 5.0 per cent. for each of 2004 and 2005.

  Furthermore, since delays are a major concern to airlines, the Government decided that the charge cap should include a delay term, so that the "X" factor would automatically tighten, thereby reducing NATS' revenues, if delays increased.

  In reaching these decisions, the Government was concerned to achieve a smooth transition to the PPP and to enable NATS' management to focus on getting the change and investment programmes right during the early years of the PPP.

  Air Traffic
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the increase in air traffic, over the last 30 years, using UK airports. [60429]

  Mr. Darling
  The number of passengers using UK airports has increased from 35 mppa in 1971 to 180 mppa in 2001. This corresponds to an average annual increase of 5.9 per cent. in passengers using UK airports over this 30 year period.

  Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when formal type approval arrangements will be introduced for minibuses; [61811]

  (2) what arrangements are planned for mandatory checks of seat belt installations on non-PSV minibuses to ensure they meet legally required standards. [61810]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is considering the implementation of a national type approval procedure for all buses, including minibuses, by the end of 2003, as part of a current review of bus and coach construction and use requirements. Checks of seat belt installation would be part of that procedure.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that an(a) anti-lock braking system and (b) tachograph will be a mandatory safety feature for new buses. [61808]

  Mr. Spellar
  All new buses are already required to be fitted with an anti-lock braking system.

  The fitting and use of tachographs is subject to a European Union (EU) Regulation from which there is an exemption for buses on routes of less than 50 kilometres.
  185W
  A European Commission proposal to alter the scope of this Regulation and the EU drivers' hours rules themselves is currently being considered by member states.

  Abandoned Cars
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department intends to introduce to(a) strengthen vehicle licensing controls and (b) improve the traceability of the owners of abandoned cars. [62665]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government is actively pursuing measures to improve the accuracy of the vehicle record, which would enable the authorities to trace more easily the keepers of abandoned cars, as well as those involved in crime.

  The Finance Bill currently before Parliament includes enabling powers for changes to vehicle taxation, making possible a system of continuous registration which will ensure that the registered keeper of a vehicle cannot avoid responsibility for licensing it. There will be consultation with the motor trade and motorists' groups before any changes are implemented. The legislation will not affect the current system of Statutory Off-Road Notification (SORN) under which keepers who tell DVLA that they are taking their vehicles off the road are not obliged to tax them.

  The Government has also recently announced that it has set up a Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board which will take forward work on the recommendations of a review of the vehicle registration system that the Department undertook in partnership with the insurance industry.

  East Midlands Airport
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends o designate East Midlands airport under section 80 for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, in order to impose restrictions on night flying there. [63190]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State was asked by North West Leicestershire district council (and by others) to designate this airport in order to impose night restrictions using the powers by which operational noise is currently regulated at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

  I have written to the council to inform them that the Secretary of State has decided, after careful consideration, not to designate the airport. Following local discussions, the airport management has produced its own proposals, to which it is committed, for the control of noise including night noise. The Secretary of State is satisfied that these controls are sufficient in all the circumstances of the case, including the broad long-standing policy that noise controls should be settled locally where possible, such that designation is not appropriate for the present.

  I encourage East Midlands airport, as well as other airports, to continue discussions in consultation with local stakeholders, and to keep their noise control regulations under review with the aim of minimizing noise nuisance from the airport's legitimate operations.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the mandate of the Committee on Experts on the Transit of Natural Gas through Grids is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [61710]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate of the Committee is to conciliate in disputes between network operators over conditions for the use of gas transit pipelines, as set out in Article 3 of Council Directive 91/296/EEC of 31 May 1991 on the transit of natural gas through grids.

  The Committee has not met in the past 12 months. The UK representation is provided by Lattice Group plc. There is no UK public funding of this Committee. There are no items currently under consideration by the Committee.

  The Commission's current proposals for liberalising the European energy market would repeal Directive 91/296/EEC and so remove the legal base for this Committee.

  Royal Geographical Society Speech
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Royal Geographical Society on 5 June 1997; and if he will make a statement. [61254]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have today placed copies of the speech in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost of the redesign and re-launch of her Department's website. [52309]

  Ms Hewitt
  The redesign of the site was part of the ongoing process of making it easier for users to find the information they require. The contract for the redesign was let by tender, and six companies were invited to tender, in accordance with normal departmental rules. The winning company were judged to offer the best value for money for the job. As I informed the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 393W, the cost was £60,294 including VAT.

  We are currently undertaking customer research to as ertain the success of the redesign. We will be talking to the three main audience groups, businesses, consumers and employees, to ensure that the site continues to meet their needs.

  Anti-competitive Practices
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate possible anti-competitive practices by mobile telephone network providers who prevent non-contracted pay-as-you-go consumers from switching networks on their handsets until they have spent a minimum amount on calls. [56584]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a matter for the Director General for Telecommunications. I understand that he intends to investigate this practice in the near future.

  Departmental Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regional organisation her Department has; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58946]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry works at regional level through the Government Offices for the Regions. There are nine Government offices in England: south-east, south-west, London, east of England, east midlands, west midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, north-west and north-east. The Government offices are funded by nine sponsor Departments, including my Department. The Regional Co-ordination Unit based in the office of my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the Government office network.

  The county and unitary authorities in each of the nine English regions are set out in a table which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by her Department have a regional organisation; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58947]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following is the information in respect of the Department's NDPBs.

  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  Region/Area covered

  Scotland

  All counties and authorities in Scotland.

  Northern

  All counties and unitary authorities covered by the Government offices for the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber.

  North-west

  All counties and unitary authorities covered by the Government office for the north-west.

  Midlands

  All counties and unitary authorities covered by the Government offices for the east and west midlands.

  Wales and the west

  All counties and authorities in Wales plus counties and unitary authorities covered by the Government office for the south-west.

  London, eastern and southern areas

  All counties and unitary authorities covered by the Government offices for the east of England, London and the south-east.
  188W
  The regional structure of ACAS at 1 April 1997 was the same as this with the following exceptions.

  The county of Cumbria was covered by ACAS's northern region rather than north-west region.

  Wales and the south-west were two separate regions.

  The south-west region also covered Hampshire (except north-east Hampshire), Oxfordshire, Berkshire and the Isle of Wight.

  Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch)

  Region/Area covered

  North-east (Newcastle)

  Counties: Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham, north, west and south Yorkshire, East riding, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire.

  Central (Birmingham)

  Counties: Herefordshire, Worcestershire, West Midlands. Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Rutland, Cambridgeshi e, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire.

  South-east (London)

  Counties: London, Essex, Kent, Surrey.

  Southern (Bournemouth)

  Counties: East Sussex, West Sussex, Berkshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Bristol, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall.

  North-west (Manchester)

  Counties: Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire

  and the unitary authorities therein.

  The GECC was established in 2000.

  Consumer Council for Postal Services (Postwatch)

  Postwatch was established in January 2001. There are six regional committees covering England. The exact boundaries of the regions are determined by discrete postcode areas, resulting in some counties being covered by more than one region.

  The Postwatch Northern England region covers the counties of Cumbria, Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire, North Yorkshire, Cheshire and parts of Lincolnshire and Derbyshire and the unitary authorities of Darlington, Stockton-on-Tees, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Blackpool, Blackburn, Halton, Warrington, York, East Riding of Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire, city of Kingston upon Hull, North-east Lincolnshire.

  The Postwatch Midlands region covers the counties of Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, and Northamptonshire and the unitary authorities of Herefordshire, Stoke, the Wrekin, South Gloucestershire, city of Derby, city of Nottingham and the city of Leicester.

  The Postwatch East of England region covers the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and parts of Lincolnshire and Hertfordshire and the unitary authorities of city of Peterborough, Luton and Milton Keynes.

  The Postwatch South and West region covers the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and parts of Berkshire and West Sussex and the unitary authorities of city of Bristol, Swindon, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, West Berkshire, North

  189W
  Somerset, Bath and North-east Somerset, Bournemouth, Poole, Isle of Wight, Southampton, Portsmouth, Torbay and city of Plymouth.

  The Postwatch South-east England region covers the counties of Kent, East Sussex, Surrey, and parts of West Sussex, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Essex and Hertfordshire and the unitary authorities of Windsor and Maidenhead, Slough, Brighton and Hove, Medway, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.

  The Postwatch Greater London region covers the county of Middlesex and parts of Kent, Essex and Surrey and the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London.

  In addition there are Postwatch offices for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The DTI sponsors the eight Regional Development Agencies in England. They cover the following areas:

  East Midlands

  The counties of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire.

  The non-metropolitan districts of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Rutland.

  Eastern

  The counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.

  The non-metropolitan districts of Luton, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.

  London

  Greater London.

  North-east

  The counties of Durham and Northumberland.

  The metropolitan districts of Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland.

  The non-metropolitan districts of Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees.

  North-west

  The counties of Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire.

  The metropolitan districts of Bolton, Bury, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, St. Helens, Salford, Sefton, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan and Wirral.

  The non-metropolitan districts of Black urn with Darwen, Blackpool, Halton and Warrington.

  South-east

  The counties of Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and West Sussex.

  The non-metropolitan districts of Bracknell Forest, Brighton and Hove, the Medway towns, Milton Keynes, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham.

  South-west

  The counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

  The non-metropolitan districts of Bath and north-east Somerset, Bournemouth, Bristol, North Somerset, Plymouth, Poole, South Gloucestershire, Swindon and Torbay.

  The Isles of Scilly.

  West Midlands

  The counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire.

  The metropolitan districts of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton.
  190W
  The non-metropolitan districts of Herefordshire, Stoke-on-Trent and Telford and Wrekin.

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  The county of North Yorkshire.

  The metropolitan districts of Barnsley, Bradford, Calderdale, Doncaster, Kirklees, Leeds, Rotherham, Sheffield and Wakefield.

  The non-metropolitan districts of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North-east Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and York.

  The National Consumer Council has no regional organisation, however it has two subsidiary organisations, the Welsh Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council covering Wales and Scotland respectively.

  I have asked the chief executives of the Department's agencies that have a regional organisation to respond to the hon. Member direct, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59774]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) The information is as follows:
  Elizabeth House, York Road, London—refurbishment works to the first and second floors
  Sunley Towers, Piccadilly, Manchester—refurbishment works to the nineteenth floor
  Athol House, Aberdeen—lift refurbishment
  Ongoing programme of replacement of old office furniture with more space-efficient furniture.

  (b) The information is as follows:
  1 Victoria Street and 10 Victoria Street. London—internal redecorations
  Kingsgate House, Victoria Street, London—external redecoration
  Kingsgate House, Victoria Street, London—air conditioning enhancements
  Kingsgate House, Victoria Street, London—reception refurbishment.

  Only projects costing £100,000 or more have been included.

  The following steps are taken in order to ensure that certified timber is procured.

  All HQ furniture is procured through the Office for Government Commerce's (OGC) central Government buying framework arrangements. It is a condition of all furniture suppliers to the Department to have FSC certificates.

  Contractors engaged in building works are required by our pre-qualification procedures to act in accordance with ISO 14001, which includes a commitment to use legal and sustainable sources of timber.

  Business Links
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many start-up firms have received help from Business Links in each of the past three years. [61311]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Until 2002–03 SBS has not required Business Links to provide information on assistance to businesses by age of the business.
  191W
  However, he SBS has required Business Links to provide management information on the number of clients assisted as part of the High Growth Potential start-up programme and more generally the number of pre-starts (people thinking about/trying to start a business) helped.

  High Growth Potential (HGP) start-ups and pre-start businesses assisted—England

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  HGP start-ups

  465

  2,769

  5,219

  non HGP pre-starts

  1—

  1—

  83,515

  1 Not available

  Source:

  Business Link management information returns

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for Co-ordination in the Internal Market Field is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61702]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate for this committee is set out in Articles 1 and 2 of Council Decision of 23 December 1992 as follows:There shall be attached to the Commission an Advisory Committee for Co-ordination in the Internal Market Field, hereinafter referred to as 'the committee'. The committee shall comprise two representatives of each member state and be chaired by a representative of the Commission.
  The committee may be consulted by the Commission on any practical problem which may arise after 1 January 1993 concerning the functioning of the internal market other than those which are covered by action taken in accordance with arrangements to notify to the Commission, laid down in any other applicable Community measure or established within an existing framework for practical co-operation between the Commission and the member states.

  The committee is divided into a number of formations, but has met in total 10 times within the last 12 months, and the UK is represented by a DTI official except in the case of the 'Better Regulation' formation where a Cabinet Office (Regulatory Impact Unit) official also attends. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The travel expenses for meetings of the committee are reimbursed by the Commission.

  The main issues/topics considered at the last meetings of the various formations were:

  Heads of Delegations

  Internal market and enlargement; 'SOLVIT' problem solving system; review of the Commission's internal market strategy:

  IMAC (general)

  Effective problem solving in the internal market ('SOLVIT' database); European Business Test panel; marking the 10th anniversary of the internal market; company taxation and the internal market; Citizens Signpost Service; the May 2002 Internal Market Scoreboard; candidate countries and administrative co-operation;
  192W
  Heads of Co-ordination Centres

  Effective problem solving in the internal market ('SOLVIT' database);

  SLIM (Better Regulation)

  Modernising the European Business Test panel; The Commission's Better Regulation package; national simplification initiatives post-Mandelkern report; better regulation in other Community institutions; outcome of the 5 phase of SLIM.

  In practice many of the items considered by the committee are also considered by Council working groups and the internal market Consumers and Tourism Council of Ministers. Proposals for Council legislation and other EU published documents are subject to UK parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the European Advisory Committee on Research is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61705]

  Ms Hewitt

  1. The European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) is a high level, independent, advisory committee created by the European Commission to provide advice on the design and implementation of EU policy in research and technological development.

  2. In the last year, EURAB met on four occasions: 26 September 2001 (its inaugural meeting), 13 December 2001, 20 March 2002 and 28 May 2002.

  3. There are three UK-based members of EURAB. Members of EURAB act in a personal capacity, member states do not have formal membership.

  4. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The travel and subsistence expenses for meetings of EURAB, or any working party set up within the committee will be met by the European Commission in accordance with the current administrative rules and regulations.

  5. EURAB's work is currently focused on: The Role of Universities in the European Research Area, Enlargement and the European Research Area, Evaluation, European Research Area: Scope and Vision, Improving Innovation, and Increasing the attractiveness of science, technology and engineering careers.

  6. EURAB's role is to deliver advice and opinions on specific issues either at the request of the Commission or on its own initiative. In carrying this out, EURAB operates independently from the Commission, from member states and from existing science or industry organisations. It may nevertheless co-operate with organisations and institutions interested in European research, to create working groups on specific themes and to consult with other experts who could enrich its reflection. While the deliberations of the Board are confidential, its activities will be reported annually to the Commissioner responsible for Research. All advice or opinions adopted by the Board are also forwarded

  193W
  to the Commissioner and made known to the other EU Institutions and to member states. EURAB's Annual Report and any advice or opinions it makes are published on the internet http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/index-en.html

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce for all employees(a) statutory entitlement to bank and public holidays and (b) a right to either time off, double pay or time off in lieu; and if she will make a statement. [62393]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have no plans to change the existing bank holiday arrangements.

  Tropical Hardwoods
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what systems her Department has in place to track Brazilian mahogany in the UK for the purpose of issuing re-export licences where necessary. [60670]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no systems in place to track Brazilian mahogany in the UK. An exporter wishing to re-export unprocessed Brazilian mahogany outside the EU requires a re-export permit from my Department, and would need to present a stamped import notification form as proof of legal importation. Any cargo presented for re-export without the necessary documentation wo ld be liable for seizure.

  However, most Brazilian mahogany imported into the UK will be made into furniture and if re-exported will not require a re-export permit under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) because such permits are required only for logs, sawn woods and veneer sheets.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many members of her Department have been seconded to small businesses in the past five years; and what proportion of total placements these secondments account for. [61309]

  Ms Hewitt
  In recording information on the secondment of DTI staff to the private sector we have not, historically, included an indication of the size of the companies involved. It is not therefore possible to give the information requested. However, I have placed in the Library of both Houses information on the number of secondments commenced in each of the past five years and the companies involved. The total number of secondments to the private sector since 1997 has been 112.

  We have recently introduced a new system for recording information on secondments and in future, where it is available, we will be recording within three ranges the size of the companies to which we send staff.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to reduce the level of regulations affecting small businesses in the last three years; and what further plans she has in this respect. [61160]
  194W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government has put in place a number of measures to reduce the burden of regulations on small businesses, including:Announced in January 2000 that employers with over four or fewer employees will be exempt from the requirements to provide access to stakeholder pensions and deduct pension contributions.
  Announced in April 2000 an increase in the statutory audit threshold for companies from £350,000 to £1 million. This measure will relieve up to 150,000 small firms from the burden of a statutory audit, saving small companies up to £180 million a year.
  We have exempted small shops from the new EU unit pricing requirements.
  We have exempted employers with 20 or fewer employees from the trade union recognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act.
  The Small Business Service has produced clear guidance on a number of complex regulations.
  The Business Link Website is now attracting 80,000 users per month—and businesses can register to receive alerts about regulations automatically.
  A 12 weeks period between regulations has been agreed and implemented allowing owner managers time to adapt to the new regulations.
  Ensured that the view of small business influenced Patrick Carter's review of payroll administration, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.
  In February we published the regulatory Reform Action Plan—setting out over 250 proposals for better regulation and reform.

  Further to these measures:
  An estimated 900,000 SMEs benefit from measures announced in Budget 2002, including 485,000 businesses whose corporation tax bill has been cut or abolished, and 700,000 small businesses who will be able to benefit from our flat rate VAT scheme.
  Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) have to be produced for all regulations setting out clearly the costs and benefits with full recognition of small business concerns. The Department's policy is to 'think small first': the Small Business Service has to be consulted on all RIAs to ensure that the impact on small firms is not disproportionate.
  Following the recent review of the DTL, the regulatory challenge function within the Department has been strengthened. A new tea has been created specifically to consider how the Department should challenge existing and future legislation as well as to how to ensure all policy makers fully consider alternatives to regulation at the outset of the policy making process.

DEFENCE

  Courts Martial
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of HM armed forces have been brought before courts martial in each of the past eight years charged with violent offences against(a) male and (b) female (i) members of HM armed forces and (ii) civilians. [61388]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 61W, on courts martial, if he will

  195W
  break down the cases involving violent crime by (a) severity of offence, (b) sex of victim and (c) whether the victim was a member of HM armed forces. [61387]

  Mr. Ingram
  Available information on cases in the three services presented to courts martial during the year 2000 involving violent crime are as follows. The services do not employ a formal ranking of severity for violent offences, and so the offences are presented by type.

  Royal Navy

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm—11 charges. All victims were members of the armed forces and consisted of 10 males and one female.

  Assault—23 charges. 21 victims belonged to the armed forces and two were civilians and consisted of 18 males and five females.

  Fighting—2 charges. Both were naval personnel.

  Army

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm—101 charges

  Common assault/battery—33 charges

  Grievous bodily harm/wounding—32 charges

  Grievous bodily harm/wounding with intent—9 charges

  Affray—7 charges

  Protection from harassment—4 charges

  Fighting/violence against a superior—3 charges

  Threatening/abusive behaviour—1 charge

  Other violent offences—2 charges.

  The Army statistics presented show individual cases that may include the individual being charged with more than one charge. In such cases, the more severe charge is listed—e.g, cases involving GBH and AOABH have been listed under GBH.

  The sex of the victim, or whether they were members of the armed forces or civilians is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Air Force

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm—12 charges

  Battery—12 charges

  Common assault—2 charges

  Grievous bodily harm—1 charge

  Unlawful wounding—1 charge.

  The sex of the victim, or whether they were members of the armed forces or civilians is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the net loss of people per month was for the(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Navy in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [62245]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Month of flow

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  April 2001

  Officers

  24

  92

  14

  Other ranks

  121

  445

  96

  May 2001

  Officers

  92

  70

  20

  Other ranks

  475

  119

  116

  June 2001

  Officers

  46

  20

  27

  Other ranks

  17

  450

  35

  July 2001

  Officers

  28

  20

  80

  Other ranks

  116

  91

  44

  196W

  Month of flow

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  August 2001

  Officers

  42

  67

  15

  Other ranks

  298

  85

  33

  September 2001

  Officers

  133

  189

  0

  Other ranks

  13

  1,406

  46

  October 2001

  Officers

  42

  32

  3

  Other ranks

  143

  0

  5

  November 2001

  Officers

  47

  52

  1

  Other ranks

  4

  202

  31

  December 2001

  Officers

  24

  49

  46

  Other ranks

  82

  251

  75

  January 2002

  Officers

  109

  250

  49

  Other ranks

  86

  810

  27

  February 2002

  Officers

  36

  21

  79

  Other ranks

  34

  194

  154

  March 2002

  Officers

  25

  16

  7

  Other ranks

  49

  3

  58

  Naval service includes both Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

  Figures are for UK regular forces (including both trained and untrained personnel) and therefore exclude Gurkhas, full-time reserve personnel, the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, mobilised reservists and activated reservists.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the manning targets for the three services have been redefined since the publication of the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [62243]

  Mr. Ingram
  Manpower targets for each of the three services reflect the outcome of the strategic defence review and are set out in the current public service agreements. The target for each service is as follows:The Naval Service to reach full manning within a tolerance band +1-2 per cent, in 2004;
  The Army to reach 97 per cent, of its manning requirement in 2004;
  The Royal Air Force to reach full manning against the requirement within a tolerance band of +1-2 per cent, by 2004.
  The manpower requirement for each service reflects the necessity to deliver the capabilities and meet the commitments that were identified in the strategic defence review. The requirements, and the performance in meeting them, are reported by the Defence Analytical Services Agency both annually in UK defence statistics and quarterly under national statistics arrangements. Copies of these publications can be found in the Library of the House.
  The Services' manpower requirements are dynamic and subject to annual review in light of evolving doctrine, new technology and equipment, and possible changes to the operating environment. For example, a review of the Army's future manpower requirement has recently been concluded, resulting in a revised manning target of 106,978.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen and servicewomen applied for premature voluntary retirement in(a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [62246]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to Tri-Service Publication 5: UK Regular Forces Premature Voluntary Release. This publication is available in the Library of the House and is updated on a quarterly basis.
  197W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the manpower shortages against trained establishment were in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [62241]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to Table 1 of the Quarterly Press Release on Services Manpower (TSP 4), a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the manning targets are for the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF; and if he will make a statement. [62242]

  Mr. Ingram
  Manning targets can be found in the monthly publication; 'UK Armed Forces Strengths and Requirements' (TSP 3), a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outflow was of Regular Serving Personnel for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [62244]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outflow from trained strength of the UK Regular Forces is as follows:

  1997–98

  Financial Year 1998–99

  2000–01

  Total

  19,030

  19,750

  18,430

  Naval Service

  4,140

  4,140

  3,620

  Army

  10,620

  11,250

  10,640

  RAF

  4,270

  4,360

  4,180

  Note:

  Due to rounding methods used totals may not always equal the exact sum of the parts.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the expenditure overspend for the Defence Logistics Organisation in the current year; what the principal cause of the overspend is; and how the overspend is to be funded, broken down by in-year spending reductions under other budget headings of his Department. [62221]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistics Organisation is under remit to operate within its Control Totals for the current financial year 2002–03 and there is no reason to believe that it will overspend.

  Tornado
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State or Defence what the cost has been of the Tornado F3 MLU programme. [62236]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Tornado F3 fleet has not undergone a Mid-Life Update programme.

  A capability sustainment programme to integrate the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) onto the aircraft is nearing completion at a cost of £125 million.

  In addition, the Tornado F3 fleet is currently undergoing, or planned to undergo, a number of upgrade activities that will maintain the aircraft's operational capability for the remainder of its in-service life. The work comprises integration of secure communication
  198W
  equipment, a Successor Identification Friend or Foe system, an instrumentation enhancement to aid training and a programme to maximise the effectiveness of the AMRAAM, and will cost an additional £125 million.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects Tornado fighters fitted with AMRAAM to be operational; and what radar system will be fitted to such Tornado fighters. [62230]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 94 Tornado F3 aircraft operational with Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles.

  The current radar system fitted to the Tornado F3 is the Foxhunter Air Intercept radar known as the A124. There are no plans to change it.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the AMRAAM missiles fitted to Tornado F3 aircraft are able to be used to their full capabilities. [62238]

  Dr. Moonie
  A capability sustainment programme to integrate the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) on the Tornado F3 aircraft is nearing completion. A further programme of work to optimise the effectiveness of AMRAAM is currently under way to enable the Tornado F3 fully to exploit the missile's capability. This work is due to be completed in the spring of next year.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the Government of Nepal concerning the treatment of former British Army Gurkhas in Nepal by the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [62219]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation (GAESO) is one of a number of ex-Gurkha organisations based in Nepal. Unfortunately, there have been reports in the past of GAESO activists using threats of violence to extort money from former Gurkha soldiers. This is unacceptable intimidation of sometimes weak and vulnerable pensioners who have provided this country with dedicated service over many generations. In light of these reports, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) wrote to the Prime Minister of Nepal in April 2000. Our concerns were also reinforced during subsequent visits to Nepal by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. The British Embassy in Kathmandu also maintain regular contact with the Nepalese Government and police authorities. There have been no reports of illicit fund raising since October 2001.

  Harrier GR9
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra training Sea Harrier pilots will have to undergo to convert to Harrier GR9; and what the cost will be of that training per pilot. [62336]

  Mr. Ingram
  We expect Sea Harrier FA2 pilots to undertake a course lasting approximately 12 weeks, comprising approximately 35 hours of flying, in order to convert to the Harrier GR7 aircraft. The content of the
  199W
  conversion course has yet to be finalised but the majority of training will be learning how to operate the aircraft weapons systems and sensors.

  It is anticipated that the conversion course will be cost neutral because Sea Harrier FA2 pilots would have flown approximately the same number of hours to retain currency in that aircraft during a similar period. No additional resources have therefore been needed for this training.

  Tank Regiments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he plans to reduce the number of tank regiments in the British Army; [62226]

  (2) if he plans to reduce the number of Challenger 2 tanks in the British Army; and if he will make a statement. [62222]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to reduce the number of tank regiments or the number of Challenger 2 tanks in the British Army.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) fully trained manned strength was of each tank regiment in the British Army in March of each of the past five years; and if he plans to reduce the establishment of the regiments. [62227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment and trained manned strength of regiments equipped with Challenger 2 tanks' as at 1 April 2002 and in each of the previous four years is detailed as follows. There are no plans to reduce the establishment of these regiments.

  1 8 Squadron I Royal Tank Regiment/Joint Nuclear Biological and Chemical Regiment retains Challenger 2 tanks in their role as the demonstrations squadron at Warminster.

  Regiment

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 April 2002

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  497

  457

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  497

  495

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  497

  508

  King's Royal Hussars

  497

  488

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  497

  475

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  506

  489

  1 April 2001

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  497

  415

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  497

  470

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  497

  441

  King's Royal Hussars

  497

  486

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  497

  451

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  506

  538

  1 April 2000

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  511

  424

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  511

  431

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  511

  399

  King's Royal Hussars

  511

  463

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  511

  445

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  511

  439

  1 April 1999

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  411

  382

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  470

  412

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  408

  396

  King's Royal Hussars

  470

  453

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  470

  514

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  410

  387

  200W

  Regiment

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 April 1998

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  394

  373

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  470

  400

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  470

  470

  King's Royal Hussars

  470

  451

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  470

  440

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  394

  380

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the establishment target figure was for each battalion of the Parachute Regiment at the end of the year 2001; what the actual figures were in each case; and if he plans to cut the establishment target figures for the Parachute Regiment. [62228]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment and trained manned strength of the three regular battalions of the Parachute Regiment as at 1 January 2002 is detailed in the table.

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 PARA

  620

  599

  2 PARA1

  686

  695

  3 PARA

  687

  712

  Total

  1,993

  2,006

  1 The figures provided for both the establishment and strength of 2 PARA do not include the Gurkha Reinforcement Company that was attached to the battalion up until 1 April 2002.

  Due to the reorganisation of 16 Air Assault Brigade announced in December 2001 and the inclusion of 1 PARA within the Brigade structure, it is planned to adjust the establishment of the three regular parachute battalions, towards a common figure of about 650.

  Infantry Recruitment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of infantry recruits was generated by(a) the Recruitment Group and (b) by the regiment's own efforts in the last 12 months. [62231]

  Mr. Ingram
  Army recruiting is an integrated operation involving both the Army Training and Recruiting Agency's Recruiting Group and the Field Army. All recruits are enlisted at an armed forces career office, and no central record of the source of their interest is maintained, although Recruiting Group is developing a contacts management database that will provide a broad indication of this in due course.

  Royal Navy Vessels (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Navy vessels, and of which types, have been identified as being suitable for the control and interception of asylum seekers; [62232]

  (2) what requests he has received from other Departments for Royal Navy vessels to be used in the interception and control of asylum seekers; and how many vessels have been requested; [62233]
  201W
  (3) what plans he has for Royal Navy vessels to patrol (a) domestic and (b) international waters on duties related to the control and interception of asylum seekers. [62234]

  Mr. Ingram
  The management of all issues relating to immigration and asylum are the responsibility of the Home Office. Should they require military assistance, procedures are in place for them to make a request to the Ministry of Defence. No request has been received relating to the interception of asylum seeke s in either national or international waters.

  Hercules
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects work to be completed on the assessment of the airflow around the fuselage of the C130J Hercules aircraft. [62220]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are currently looking at what effect the airflow characteristics of the C130J Hercules aircraft has on its role in the aerial delivery of paratroopers and material. Separate trials are required for the C130J Mk5 and Mk4 aircraft and it is expected that all elements of the work will be successfully completed by mid-2003.

  Contaminated Land
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations cover radioactively contaminated land(a) owned and (b) managed by his Department. [61965]

  Mr. Ingram
  At present there are no regulations covering specifically radioactively contaminated land. However, a consultation paper on the control and remediation of radioactively contaminated land was jointly published by the then Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh and Scottish Offices in February 1998. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering the way forward on regulations concerning radioactively contaminated land in the light of the responses to that consultation.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent studies have been conducted by(a) his Department, (b) non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department and (c) consultants on behalf of his Department into the clean up of (i) radioactively contaminated land and (ii) land contaminated by non-radioactive toxic pollution. [61963]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1995 the Ministry of Defence embarked on a prioritised programme to assess the land quality across the defence estate. More than 600 land quality assessments have been carried out across the defence estate since the start of the programme. The land quality assessment work carried out to date has indicated that the majority of the defence estate is free of contamination, and where contamination has been identified, it has been predominantly localised and confined to soil horizons. The common contaminants are metals, fuels, oils and lubricants, solvents, and to a lesser extent, asbestos and radionuclides from luminised instruments. Where contamination has been encountered, appropriate management actions have been taken.

  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the origin of the consignment, (b) the physical form, (c) the isotopic composition and (d) the quantity of the nuclear materials delivered from the United States to RAF Brize Norton on 19 April; what carrier was used for the delivery; and whether the consignment is covered by the Reppir regulations on radiological emergencies and public information. [61960]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding details in accordance with Exemption 1—defence, security and international relations—of the code of practice on access to Government.

  Dirty Radioactive Bombs
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research has been undertaken(a) by and (b) on behalf of his Department into prophylactic measures to deal with dirty radioactive bombs. [61968]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not carry out research targeted at dealing with dirty radioactive bombs. However, my Department is carrying out relevant research, including work on the nuclear and radiological aspects of military NBC defence, a review of potential radiological weapons, and support to development of equipment for use by se vice personnel in military operations, such as radiation alarms, dosimeters and survey meters. Among other things, this contributes to the Home Office led, inter-departmental mechanisms that ensure the Government can prevent, and respond to the widest possible range of terrorist actions in the United Kingdom.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last held discussions with the Indian Defence Minister. [62186]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last had formal discussions with my counterpart, the Indian Defence Minister on 22 January 2002. Although we met briefly at the International Institute for Strategic Studies conference on Asian security held in Singapore between 31 May and 2 June 2000, it was not possible to hold substantive discussions.

  Jobs (Scotland)
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in Scotland(a) directly and (b) indirectly dependent on defence expenditure. [61969]

  Mr. Ingram
  The most recent figures published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) indicate that there are 9,044 civilian personnel and 14,460 service personnel directly employed by the Ministry of Defence in Scotland. The most recent figures for civilian and service personnel are from April 2002 and July 2001 respectively.

  It is estimated that around 6,000 people are supported by the placement of MOD contracts in Scotland. This is the most recent figure available and relates to the year 1998–99.
  203W
  At present, we do not have any figures to suggest how many people are supported by MOD work that has been sub-contracted to Scottish firms.

  It is difficult to estimate the indirect jobs that MOD generates and we are currently reviewing our multiplier methodology. As a rule of thumb, using a multiplier of 0.5, a further 14,752 people may be indirectly supported by the MOD presence in Scotland both through firms which supply goods and services to MOD/contractor establishments in Scotland (indirect jobs), and through consumer spending by MOD/contractor employees in the country (induced effects).

  Troop Deployments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are stationed abroad; and in which countries. [62184]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to Tri-Service Publication 6: Global Deployment of Service Personnel. This publication is available in the House of Commons Library and is updated on a six-monthly basis.

  Army (Recruitment)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications to join the Army from Northern Ireland were rejected on national security grounds in each year since 1998. [62642]

  Mr. Ingram
  Applications to join the Army in Northern Ireland that were rejected for all reasons for the period requested as follows:

  Financial year

  Applications rejected

  1997–98

  227

  1998–99

  162

  1999–2000

  189

  2000–01

  165

  2001–02

  99

  2002–031

  16

  1 To date.

  In common with other Government Departments, it is the Ministry of Defence's policy to maintain the freedom to accept, or reject, any person for employment without disclosing the reason why.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications to join the Army were made in each year since 1998. [62641]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number of applications

  1998–99

  37,915

  1999–2000

  37,844

  2000–01

  33,679

  2001–02

  38,855

  2002–031

  7,951

  1 To 31 May.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 10 June 2002,Official
  204W
  Report, column 748W, if he will state which of the countries listed have offset agreements with the UK; what the value of UK defence exports to each listed country in each year since 1997 was; and in how many cases MOUs were signed after June 1997. [63040]

  Dr. Moonie
  The only Government to Government offset arrangement is that associated with the Al Yamamah programme in Saudi Arabia. Otherwise offset arrangements are normally a matter between the customer and the vendor company. Information on commercial offset agreements are not held centrally by the Ministry of Defence and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lists of licences granted for the countries mentioned in the answer of 10 June can be found in copies of the Strategic Export Controls annual reports for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. Copies of these reports can be found in the Library of the House. The 2001 edition is currently being prepared.

  Since 1997 the UK Government have signed 47 memorandums of understandings. Countries featured are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, USA.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Research Projects
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what research projects sponsored and undertaken by her Department have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed in the last three months; [60385]

  (2) what recent changes have been made to her Department's research budget. [60384]

  Margaret Beckett
  The creation of DEFRA has brought together research, monitoring, surveillance and advisory programmes totalling in excess of £250 million annually. We are currently reviewing our science programmes and strategy following the recent appointment of a new Chief Scientific Adviser and in the light of the aims and objectives of the new Department.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has made to the European Commission seeking the promotion of non-ozone depleting alternative refrigerants. [60880]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has not made any direct representations to the Commission on this issue. However, my officials meet regularly with counterparts from other EC member states and the European Commission to discuss issues arising from EC Regulation 2037–2000 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. They are taking an active part as members of the European Commission's "European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) Working Group Industry, Work Item Fluorinated Gases", which considers policies and
  205W
  measures on fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to enable the European Community to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

  On 23 October 2001, the Commission adopted the Communicati n on the implementation of the first phase of the ECCP. This includes a proposal to bring forward legislation designed to reduce emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases, including HFCs, along the lines recommended in the report of the Working Group. The Environment Council, at its meeting of 12 December 2001, supported the Commission's proposal for legislative action.

  The European Commission expects to publish a first draft of the legislation this Autumn. By implementing regulatory action on ozone depleting substances, as well as on HFCs which replace them in applications such as refrigeration, I anticipate a greater use of refrigerants which have no ozone-depleting potential and do not significantly contribute to climate change.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to persuade the European Commission to accelerate the phase-out dates for ozone depleting substances. [60879]

  Mr. Meacher
  My officials meet regularly with counterparts from other EC member states and the European Commission to discuss issues arising from EC Regulation 2037–2000 which implements the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Together with the European Commission, the UK and other member states consider possible EC proposals for improving and strengthening the Protocol.

  EC Regulation 2037–2000 already imposes on the UK and other member states significantly stricter controls on the production, sale and use of ozone-depleting substances than are required of other Parties to the Protocol. For example, the Regulation bans the use of CFCs in the servicing of existing equipment, where the Protocol only concerns itself with their production and supply to the market and imposes no use controls. Also, HCFCs are to be phased out under the Protocol by 2030, but under the Regulation they must be phased out by 2010 for newly-produced material and 2015 for recycled material.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many income-deprived rural wards there were in England and Wales in the last 10 years; and what percentage of wards this was. [60862]

  Alun Michael
  Information on the percentage of people in receipt of means-tested benefits in rural wards in England is contained in the table.

  Percentage of people in receipt of means-tested benefit

  Number of rural wards

  Less than 5

  102

  5 to less than 10

  1,271

  10 to less than 15

  1,317

  15 to less than 20

  753

  20 to less than 25

  338

  25 to less than 30

  168

  30 to less than 40

  123

  40 or more

  25

  206W
  Notes:

  1. Analysis of figures for Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government.

  2. Information for other years is not readily available.

  3. The benefits and the year to which the data relate are: adults in income support households for 1998; children in income support households for 1998; adults in income based jobseeker's allowance households for 1998; children in income based jobseeker's allowance households for 1998; adults in family credit households for 1999; children in family credit households for 1999; adults in disability working allowance households for 1999; children in disability working allowance households for 1999; non-earning, non-IS pensioner and disabled council tax benefit recipients for 1998.

  4. People in receipt of more than one means-tested benefit are counted only once.

  5. There is no agreed percentage above which areas are define as income-deprived. The table therefore gives the number of rural wards in each percentage band.

  6. There is variation between areas in the extent to which people who are eligible claim means-tested benefits.

  Sources:

  Figures for numbers in receipt of benefits come from the Department for Work and Pensions and form the basis of the Index of Income Deprivation (a subset of the Index of Multiple Deprivation), Classification of rural wards made by the Countryside Agency.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many households in rural areas lived below the poverty line in each of the last 12 years, broken down by constituency. [60865]

  Alun Michael
  Information on the number of households below average income is not available for rural areas within each constituency. A table containing information on the percentage of people in receipt of means-tested benefit in rural wards in each constituency will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to allocate additional funds for young people through(a) specific grants and (b) the revenue support grant to rural local authorities. [61174]

  Alun Michael
  We work closely across Government to ensure that policies for children and young people take into account particular rural issues rather than allocating separate funds through such grant mechanisms. Both Sure Start and Connexions are good examples of Government programmes where the identification of specific rural needs have led to the policies being developed in ways that help meet those needs.

  Funding
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many projects were funded and what amount of funding was given by her Department and its predecessor to research on disease mechanisms, broken down by category, in each of the last 10 years. [61171]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The level of DEFRA/MAFF funded research into veterinary science has increased from £20.7 million to £37.5 million per annum over the past ten years, 1992–93 to 2001–02 inclusive. The number of projects funded is relatively constant with 281 funded in 1992–92 and 294 in 2001–02.

  A summary of the number of projects and annual costs broken down by disease category is as follows.
  207W

  DEFRA/MAFF funded veterinary research

  SE1 (£)

  FBZ2 (£)

  TB3 (£)

  Welfare4 (£)

  TSEs5 (£)

  Endemics6 (£)

  Vetmed7 (£)

  Total spend (£)

  Total no. of projects

  1992–93

  2,534,312

  1,314,202

  922,200

  5,047,372

  5,700,000

  4,238,000

  1,011,000

  20,767,086

  281

  1993–94

  3,655,164

  1,613,991

  1,071,544

  4,829,620

  6,200,000

  4,805,000

  1,151,000

  23,326,319

  284

  1994–95

  4,426,804

  1,712,476

  1,286,560

  4,228,202

  5,800,000

  3,960,771

  1,689,424

  23,104,237

  267

  1995–96

  4,189,123

  1,908,169

  1,484,286

  4,255,462

  5,600,000

  3,892,278

  1,712,758

  23,042,076

  274

  1996–97

  3,997,814

  1,920,323

  1,692,981

  4,200,706

  6,800,000

  3,995,019

  1,837,397

  24,444,240

  277

  1997–98

  3,650,299

  1,993,241

  1,719,387

  4,078,745

  10,100,000

  3,785,207

  1,804,333

  27,140,212

  299

  1998–99

  3,549,670

  1,743,123

  2,541,005

  3,654,758

  12,651,000

  3,760,415

  1,809,258

  29,709,229

  279

  1999–2000

  3,803,981

  3,023,709

  4,114,066

  3,361,174

  15,068,000

  3,315,959

  1,439,685

  34,126,574

  308

  2000–01

  3,746,853

  3,528,362

  5,265,709

  3,714,391

  13,284,000

  3,127,310

  1,576,388

  34,243,013

  301

  2001–02

  3,864,687

  3,348,476

  6,112,005

  3,208,878

  16,243,407

  2,967,958

  1,831,383

  37,576,794

  294

  1 Statutory and exotic diseases

  2 Food borne zoonoses

  3 Bovine tuberculosis

  4 Animal welfare

  5 Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

  6 Alternatives to pharmaceutical control of disease

  7 Veterinary medicines

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of funding was provided by her Department and its predecessor to veterinary science research, broken down by category, in(a) cash and (b) at constant prices in each of the last 10 years. [61193]

  DEFRA/MAFF funded veterinary research

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  SE1

  2,534,312

  3,655,164

  4,426,804

  4,189,123

  3,997,184

  3,650,299

  3,549,670

  3,803,981

  3,746,853

  3,864,687

  FBZ2

  1,314,202

  1,613,991

  1,712,476

  1,908,169

  1,920,323

  1,993,241

  1,743,123

  3,023,709

  3,528,362

  3,348,476

  TB3

  922,200

  1,071,544

  1,286,560

  1,484,286

  1,692,981

  1,719,387

  2,541,005

  4,114,066

  5,265,709

  6,112,005

  Welfare4

  5,047,372

  4,829,620

  4,228,202

  4,255,462

  4,200,706

  4,087,745

  3,654,758

  3,361,174

  3,714,391

  3,208,878

  TSEs5

  5,700,000

  6,200,000

  5,800,000

  5,600,000

  6,800,000

  10,100,000

  12,651,000

  15,068,000

  13,284,000

  16,243,407

  Endemics6

  4,238,000

  4,805,000

  3,960,771

  3,892,278

  3,995,019

  3,785,207

  3,760,415

  3,315,959

  3,127,310

  2,967,958

  Vetmed7

  1,011,000

  1,151,000

  1,689,424

  1,712,758

  1,837,397

  1,804,333

  1,809,258

  1,439,685

  1,576,388

  1,831,383

  Total spend

  20,767,086

  23,326,319

  23,104,237

  23,042,076

  24,444,240

  27,140,212

  29,709,229

  34,126,574

  34,243,013

  37,576,794

  Total number of projects

  281

  284

  267

  274

  277

  299

  279

  308

  301

  294

  1 Statutory and exotic diseases

  2 Food borne zoonoses

  3 Bovine tuberculosis

  4 Animal welfare

  5 Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

  6 Alternatives to pharmaceutical control of disease

  7 Veterinary medicines

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives, broken down by category and amount, have received Agriculture Development Scheme funding over the last two years. [61176]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: There have been three rounds of the Agriculture Development Scheme. For reasons of commercial confidentiality the

  First round: £2 million of awards announced 2 February 2000

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Pigs

  Assured British Meat

  National assurance database information and administration system (pigs module)

  Pigs

  Assured British Meat

  ABM Assured British Pigs Scheme data merger

  Pigs

  BOCM Pauls Ltd.

  Maximising pig carcase value

  Pigs/organic

  Eastbrook Farm Organic Meats Ltd.

  Growing the organic pigmeat market from a UK production base

  Pigs

  Food Trak plc

  Traceability in the pig meat supply chain

  Pigs

  JSR Farms Ltd.

  Integrated pig meat supply initiative

  Pigs

  Ladies In Pigs

  A catering colleges initiative to secure the future for British pigmeat in catering

  Pigs

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Project 2: improving supply chain communications

  208W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The level of funding into veterinary science research provided by DEFRA/MAFF over the last 10 years is provided in the table. This has increased from £20.7 million to £37.5 million per annum over the past 10 years, 1992–93 to 2001–02 inclusive.

  amounts of individual awards are not published. The successful projects and the sectors to which they relate are listed below. A total of £7 million has been awarded: £2 million on 2 February 2000, £3 million on 14 August 2000 and a further £2 million on 18 February 2002.
  209W

  First round: £2 million of awards announced 2 February 2000

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Pigs

  National Pig Association

  A risk management initiative for the UK pig industry

  Pigs

  United Pig Marketing

  A shared IT and information system for UPM and its supply chain partners

  Pigs

  University of Aberdeen

  A training package for the British pig industry using multi-media technology

  Beef

  Glendale Beef Producers

  Glendale Beef Producers initiative

  Beef/dairy

  Warwickshire Quality Calves

  Improving the value of beef calves from the dairy herd

  Dairy

  National Milk Records plc

  Proposal for a south-west dairy information network

  Dairy/organic

  Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative

  Design and initial implementation of a novel technology transfer and quality management system on organic dairy farms

  Dairy/speciality

  Business Link Bradford and District

  Feasibility study into potential for a yoghurt production facility for the Asian community

  Eggs

  British Free Range Egg Producers Association

  British Free Range Egg Marketing Company Ltd.

  Sheep

  British Sheep Dairying Association

  Implementation of structural development of the sheep dairy sector

  Sheep/speciality

  Business Link Bradford and District

  New routes to new markets-investigation into ways of making better use of sheepmeat products to the benefit of producers

  Wild Boar

  The British Wild Boar Association

  To improve collaborative marketing activity between primary and secondary producers of British farmed wild boar

  Livestock general

  Assured British Meat

  Multiple retail caterers—food safety assurance module

  Livestock general

  Assured British Meat

  Assurance chain—focus farms

  Livestock general/regional/speciality

  Assured British Meat

  Assurance and food heritage

  Livestock general

  Farmway Ltd.

  Marketing co-operatively produced branded pork, beef and lamb thro gh 'Farmway' co-operative stores: a feasibility study

  Livestock general

  Harper Adams University College

  Building regional enterprise and agricultural competitiveness through IT (Breakthrough-IT)

  Livestock general

  Meadow Valley Livestock Ltd.

  Improving farmers' efficiency and returns by directing them to market led, added value marketing schemes

  Livestock general

  South East Primestock Producers (SEPP) Ltd.

  A plan for regional growth and farmer

  Livestock general/organic/speciality

  Humane Slaughter Association

  Mobile slaughter unit 2000

  Nursery stock

  Horticultural Trades Association

  A project to influence structural change in the landscape supply chain to build value in the soft landscape market

  Nursery stock

  Horticultural Trades Association

  A project to extend the HTA nursery certification scheme to include the inspection and supply of local provenance

  Nursery stock

  Horticultural Trades Association

  A project to develop a greater understanding of the supply chain within the nurserystock sector

  Onions

  British Onion Producers Organisation

  Sector analysis of the onion market

  Potatoes

  Hereward Growers

  Collaborative marketing initiative

  Soft fruit

  Advanced Marketing Services Ltd.

  Soft fruit development for category management

  Soft fruit

  The Berryworld Producers' Organisation Ltd.

  Development of an integrated traceability system for the soft fruit industry

  Tomatoes

  Tomato Growers Association

  Investigation into the development of an integrated quality management system for the British tomato industry

  Top fruit

  Fruition Group Ltd.

  Rationalisation: the basis of a full category player

  Horticulture general

  Checkmate International

  Benchmarking services for the EUREP GAP framework

  Horticulture general

  Institute of Grocery Distribution

  Benchmarking the industry

  Combinable crops

  Samuel Rose Ltd.

  Promoting vertical integration through farmer collaboration in agricultural supply chains

  Combinable crops

  United Grain Producers

  The Marlborough Group (working together to improve farm incomes)

  Farmers' markets

  National Association of Farmers Markets

  Together to market

  Direct selling

  Farm Retail Association

  Red and green box scheme feasibility study

  Viticulture

  The Magpie Consultancy

  Formation of a collaborative marketing company owned by producers and devoted to the marketing development of the wines and vineyards of England

  Trout

  Longford Estate

  Co-ordinated approach to trout marketing

  General

  Plunkett Foundation

  Increasing competitiveness in the farmer controlled business sector through the use of best practice benchmarking

  General

  Lantra

  Increasing the competitiveness of the land based sector

  Second round: £3 million of awards announced 14 August 2000

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Beef

  Beef Improvement Grouping Ltd.

  Stabiliser suckler beef dam line—accelerated multiplication and selection

  Beef

  Mole Valley Farmers Ltd.

  The Pilgrim Beef Project

  Dairy

  National Dairy Farm Assurance Scheme Ltd.

  Reassuring the milk supply chain

  Eggs

  British Free Range Egg Marketing Ltd.

  Establishment of a internet based free range and organic egg inter-trading system in co-operation with Freedom Food Egg Guarantee Scheme (EGS)

  Eggs

  United Kingdom Egg Producers Association Ltd.

  Enriched cages—impact on future market strategy for independent poultry producers in the UK

  Pigs

  British Pig Association

  Collaborative market research, benchmarking and marketing to increase sales of 'pedigree pork'

  210W 211W

  Second round: £3 million of awards announced 14 August 2000

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Pigs

  Cotswold Pig and Development Company Ltd.

  To manage the pig supply chain by introducing new business practices that increase the level of collaborative marketing

  Pigs

  Dalehead Foods Ltd.

  Design and development of an e-supply chain

  Pigs

  Environment Agency

  Wessex Outdoor Pig Partnership

  Pigs

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Collaborative Catering Pork Proposal

  Pigs

  University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  A training package for the British pig industry using multi-media technology

  Poultrymeat—organic

  Sheepdrove Organic Farm

  The Sheepdrove Organic Poultry Producer Group

  Sheep

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Northern Uplands Sheep Strategy—To improve the financial viability of hill sheep producers, by increasing the number of lambs meeting market requirements

  Sheep

  Messrs. Dixon

  The Scrapie Resistant Swaledale Sheep Project

  Veal

  Anglo Dutch Meats (Charing) Ltd.

  UK welfare friendly veal production for export under DBES

  Veal

  Rose Veal UK Ltd.

  (Phase 2) Natural fed, freedom reared, welfare friendly, British veal

  Venison

  British Deer Farmers Association

  Farmed Venison Production: Improving efficiency and standards in the supply chain by streamlining best practice transfer

  Livestock—general

  Meadow Valley Livestock Ltd.

  Provision of specialist advice to pig producers; added value markets for beef and lamb.

  Livestock—general

  Rare Breeds Survival Trust

  Traditional Breeds Meat Marketing Scheme (TBMMS)

  Cereals

  Glencore Grain UK Ltd.

  Use of an internet tool to improve profitability of cereal production

  Cereals

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  Benchmarking the market focus of the UK cereal producing sector

  Cereals

  United Grain Producers Ltd.

  Improving the market awareness and competitive position of "Farmer Controlled Businesses" in the development and marketing of combinable crops

  Top fruit

  English Apples and Pears

  Creation and validation of a maturity index for English dessert apples and pears

  Ornamentals

  EUROGRO

  Workshops and training seminars under the agricultural development scheme second bidding round

  Industrial crops

  British Biogen

  National Scheme For Energy Crop Marketing and Development

  Fish

  British Trout Association

  Economic impact assessment of the UK trout industry

  Other

  First Honey Co-operative

  Collaborative marketing of British honey; an initiative by First Honey Co-operative

  General

  Assured Food Standards

  Developing the definitive authority for farm and food assurance

  Farmers' markets

  National Association of Farmers Markets

  Marketing for Markets

  eneral

  National Farmers Union London

  Improving competitiveness, building a better understanding of the food supply chain among farmers, growers and directors of FCBs.

  Collaborative marketing

  Plunkett Foundation

  Collaborative Marketing—working together for profit

  Third round: £2 million of awards announced 18 February 2002

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Beef

  Beef Improvement Grouping Ltd. and Paragon

  Beef Genetic Services—a joint venture to enable central embryo transfer provision and maximum stabiliser multiplication rates.

  Beef

  Swindells Livestock Ltd. and Dickens Partnership

  The production of quality beef from intensive vegetable production by-products, dairy calves, a by-product of the dairy industry and the investigating of marketing alternatives for this product using non-traditional market systems

  Beef/dairy

  Meadow Quality Ltd.

  Facilitating integrated collaborative marketing; integrated suckler-cow beef supply chains; and enabling dairy farmers and rearers to be involved partners in improved English beef production.

  Beef/dairy

  UK Sire Services Ltd.

  Promotion of the English beef and dairy gene pool

  Dairy

  Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers and Plunkett Foundation

  Strengthening the competitiveness of English milk groups—improved corporate governance through farmer-director development.

  Pigs

  PIC UK Ltd. on behalf of QSC Farmer Group

  QSC—quality supply chain

  Pigs

  Porcofram Marketing

  Future marketing and production strategies

  Sheep

  British Charollais Sheep Society

  To establish a central body, which acts as the main link between ram breeders, prime lamb producers, abattoirs, meat processors, retailers and consumers and lead to the consumption of improved quality lamb from farms, which are selected by consumers.

  Sheep

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Northern Upland Sheep Strategy—Phase 2

  Livestock/general

  Freedom Food

  Freedom Food Direct: A new model for animal agriculture.

  Livestock/general

  Oxlot Ltd.

  21st century Livestock Marketing: Live real time on line market auction.

  General/regional food

  South West Regional Food and Drink Group

  South West Food Plus—a pilot model for a regional food trade organisation.

  General

  Farmers First plc

  The establishment of Aria foods and the introduction of meat chips into the UK Market.

  General

  Model Farm Society

  Model farm society

  General

  Royal Agricultural Society of England

  Farmer controlled businesses: raising the game

  212W

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) timetable and (b) expenditure is planned for the public debate on genetically modified crops. [61175]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 June 20021: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on 31 May that the Government considered that there should be a full and informed debate on GM issues, including GM crops. The Government want to start the debate as soon as possible. They are considering the timetable and expenditure for the debate.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to change the pr cedure for approval of GM foods and seeds; [58544]

  (2) what plans she has to alter the rights of members of the public who object to the approval of GM foods and seeds to protest against such moves. [58546]

  Mr. Meacher
  All EU member states are in the process of implementing directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, which replaces and updates the old directive 90/220/EEC.

  The new directive introduces a more robust framework for taking decisions on whether or not to allow the release of GMOs, including GM seeds, in the UK and the EU. It clarifies and increases the level of scientific scrutiny required in assessing safety implications of proposed releases of GMOs. Risk assessments have been extended to cover 'indirect' and long-term' risks to the environment. It also introduces 'post-market monitoring', under which any GMO which is granted consent to be used commercially must be monitored for unanticipated effects on the environment.

  The new directive also introduces a new requirement for mandatory public consultation before decisions are taken on applications for consents to release GMOs. We propose that public consultations in England on research trial applications must last for a minimum of 48 days. Consultations on commercial applications (for which the European Commission is responsible) will consist of two separate periods of 30 days.

  The Department consulted the public on broad issues raised by the new directive in autumn 2001. We recently began a second public consultation on draft implementing regulations for England, and aim for the regulations to enter into force in October 2002. Copies of the consultation paper are being placed in the parliamentary Libraries.

  The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland will make separate implementing regulations on issues for which they have devolved powers.

  GM foods are approved in Europe in accordance with the provisions of the EC Novel Foods and Novel Foods Ingredients Regulation (258/97). A European Commission proposal for a single GM food and feed regulation is currently under negotiation. The proposal aims to improve the involvement of the public in the authorisation process.
  214W
  Changes to the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 will be needed in the near future to amend references to EC seeds marketing directives which are currently being codified by the Council of the European Union. In addition, on 21 November 2000 the Government replied to a parliamentary question about changes to the arrangement for requesting a hearing on proposed national list decisions. In this reply, the Government said that they would wish to consider whether the current arrangements are satisfactory for all parties, in the light of the proposed addition of a genetically modified plant variety, Chardon LL, to the national list. The Chardon LL hearing will finish around mid-June this year and the time is right to review how those arrangements have worked. If changes are proposed, all interested parties will be fully consulted.

  Driving Lessons (Teenagers)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what environmental assessment and assessment of the traffic implications she has made of proposals to encourage the(a) loan of mopeds and (b) cash help for driving lessons to teenagers in rural areas. [61325]

  Alun Michael
  The rural White Paper charged the Countryside Agency with evaluating existing Wheels to Work schemes and subsequent production of a good practice guide for their development and implementation. The evaluation does not include a specific environmental assessment or an assessment of the traffic implications of encouraging loans of mopeds or cash help for driving lessons for teenagers in rural areas.

  Such assessme ts were not deemed to be necessary because the scale of Wheels to Work is fairly small: 21 schemes were identified and while new schemes will be set up, they are only ever likely to affect a small proportion of the population. The Countryside Agency will continue to monitor the number of new schemes developing to remain informed about possible environmental impacts.

  Countryside Access
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of access to the countryside and right of way broken down by region; and if she will make a statement. [61133]

  Alun Michael
  We are on course to meet our target to open up all open country and registered common land in England under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 by the end of 2005. Draft maps of open country and registered common land have been issued and consulted upon for the south-east and lower north-west regions, but no specific assessment by region has been carried out. An assessment of the condition of rights of way in England was published recently by the Countryside Agency, but the Government have not produced any information on rights of way nationally or regionally. Work is progressing to produce regulations for Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 with an aim to have the majority of provisions in force by the end of 2003.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will support the proposal from Nicaragua and Guatemala to upgrade mahogany from CITES appendix III to appendix II at the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in November. [62322]

  Mr. Meacher
  As with all plant proposals put to the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, we shall be advised on this by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, our scientific authority on these matters.

  I can confirm, however, that in principle we support the proposal by Nicaragua to include the neotropical populations of Swietenia macrophylla (big leaf mahogany) in appendix II of the convention.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to seize Brazilian mahogany imported since 19 October 2001. [50462]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have no plans to seize Brazilian mahogany imported since 19 October 2001. All of the mahogany that has been imported into the United Kingdom since then has been accompanied by export permits provided by the Brazilian Management Authority.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of countryside stewardship agreements her Department's Rural Development Service has visited in each year since the scheme began. [60673]

  Mr. Morley
  A programme of care and maintenance visits is carried out by technical staff from DEFRA's Rural Development Service. This programme currently aims to cover around 20 per cent. of agreements each year. These visits are not part of the separate compliance monitoring programme, undertaken by staff from the Rural Payments Agency which inspects 5 per cent. of agreements annually. Prior to the creation of the Rural Development Service in April 2001, care and maintenance visits were carried out by technical staff from the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency.

  Trickle Irrigation
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will examine the case for the protection of trickle irrigation in consultations on the draft water Bill; and if she will make it her policy t at trickle irrigators are(a) granted time-limited licences equivalent to their current abstraction and (b) equally treated with other abstractors when licences are reviewed under the Environment Agency's Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy. [60680]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have examined the case for the protection of trickle irrigation before issuing the Government's response to the consultation on the water Bill. There will be a two-year transitional period during which trickle abstractors can apply for abstraction licences. During this time the Environment Agency will be required to ensure that there is no derogation of their abstractions.
  216W
  The Department is drawing up transitional provisions aiming to ensure that established use of trickle irrigation is not disadvantaged compared to other licensed abstractions for agricultural or horticultural purposes. In doing so, I shall consider whether present trickle irrigators should be automatically granted time limited licences equivalent to their current abstraction when the exemption is removed, to enable trickle licences to be reviewed on a par with other abstractions as part of the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) process.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefits of access to broadband services for rural diversification; and if she will make a statement. [61793]

  Alun Michael
  The Government are convinced that ICT has a central role in broadening the economic base in rural areas. Stimulating broadband across the whole of the UK, especially outside of large towns and cities, is one of Government's top priorities. Measures to drive further roll-out will include:encouraging infrastructure sharing by telecommunications companies to reduce the cost of roll-out;
  facilitating satellite broadband deployment, with a fast-track, on-line licensing regime and a review of planning regulations for satellite terminals;
  using more effective procurement of the public sector's broadband requirements to drive broadband into rural areas and also to improve value for money. The Government are tasking the Office for Government Commerce to investigate what further steps Government Departments can take to procure broadband more effectively and to act as a source of guidance.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what target she has set for the roll-out of broadband services across the rural community; and if she will make a statement. [61794]

  Alun Michael
  In February 2002 the Government published "UK Online: the Broadband Future" which set the target for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. The Government have put in place a £30 million fund to allow regional development agencies and devolved Administrations to develop schemes for extending broadband into areas that appear commercially unattractive. Along with the Minister for Trade, I have discussed implementation with the regional development agencies in England and they are focusing on how best to target the needs of their region.

  CAP
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the average UK family of four contributed to the CAP in the last year for which estimates are available. [60558]

  Mr. Morley
  Individuals in the UK contribute to the CAP as consumers through higher food prices and as taxpayers through CAP direct support payments.

  We estimate that, in 2000, a notional UK family of four paid £4-£5 per week in higher food prices as a result of the CAP. UK taxpayers do not contribute specifically to the CAP; rather, they contribute to the EU b dget as a

  217W
  whole. Total EU payments in 2000 were approximately £51 billion (83 billion euros), of which around £25 billion (40.5 billion euros) was spent under the CAP. The UK currently provides around 13.5 per cent. of total budgetary contributions.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a detailed account of the eutrophication methodology that she proposes to use to implement the EC nitrates directive. [61555]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The methodology used to identify eutrophic nitrate vulnerable zones is summarised in annex A of the consultation paper "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?", published in December 2001, and set out in more detail in annex B of the consultation paper "Methodology for identifying sensitive areas (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) and Methodology for designating vulnerable zones (Nitrates Directive) in England and Wales", published by the then Department of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Welsh Office, in March 1993. Both publications should be available in the Library.

  CERRIE
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 829W, on CERRIE, what the job titles are of the CERRIE Secretariat; and when the CERRIE website will become active. [62004]

  Mr. Meacher
  The CERRIE Secretariat do not have formal job titles beyond being members of the secretariat. The CERRIE website became active on 31 May 2002.

  Protected Areas
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation the Government have made of the success of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas in the European Union; and what role the Government are playing in plans to extend these areas to new member states upon enlargement. [61992]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) requires each member state to identify and select special areas of conservation that, together with special protection areas under the Birds Directive, will form a coherent European ecological network to be known as Natura 2000. However, the adoption of site lists across the whole EU has been delayed, with lists comprising the six biogeographic regions not expected to be finalised until next year. Following the adoption of the lists of sites it will be for the European Commission and member states collectively to ensure that the network is evaluated against its stated aim of maintaining or restoring the features concerned at a favourable conservation in their natural range.

  Member states are required to produce 6-yearly reports on the implementation of the Directive. Most member states have now done so for the period June 1994—December 2000. As soon as all countries have done so the Commission will seek to evaluate member states'
  218W
  successes. The UK's report "First Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on implementation of the Directive from June 1994 to December 2000" is in the House Library.

  To join the European Union countries have to have a requirement to implement the environmental acquis, which includes implementation and enforcement of environment legislation on the Birds and Habitats Directives. No transitional periods have been agreed for these Directives and the UK has supported new member states proposing Natura 2000 sites upon entry. Scientific advice and support has been provided by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to some enlargement countries to assist them to understand and apply the site selection requirements of the Habitats Directive.

  R ral Population
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the population lives in rural areas broken down by(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district and unitary councils. [60834]

  Alun Michael
  Information on the percentage of the population living in rural wards in each(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district and unitary councils in England is contained in the attached tables. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if she will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60469]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the creation of DFERA in June 2001, the new department has focused, through the SR2002 process, on developing a set of performance targets which properly reflects its new role and responsibilities.

  The performance targets for DEFRA, other than those set out in its interim PSA, are drawn from both the former MAFF Service Delivery Agreement and parts of the former DETR Service Delivery Agreement. These targets were agreed between each department and the Treasury.

  Progress against these targets is monitored by the Finance, Planning and Resources Directorate of DEFRA. Details of the SDAs can be found at:
  "www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/busplan/sda/sdahome.htm"

  The DEFRA Departmental Report (Cmd 5422) provides details of how to access information about its Executive Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies including information on business plans and performance targets.

  Ragwort
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to make the irresponsible spread of ragwort a prosecutable offence; and if she will make a statement. [60763]
  219W
  Mr. Morley
  Using powers contained in the Weeds Act 1959, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can take statutory action to control the spread of five injurious weeds, including common ragwort.

  Under the Act, the Secretary of State can serve an enforcement notice on an occupier of land on which any of the five injurious weeds are growing requiring the occupier to take action to prevent the weeds from spreading. The Act also permits officials to enter land to inspect whether an enforcement notice has been complied with. If an occupier has unreasonably failed to comply with the notice, he or she shall be guilty of an offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine. The Act also contains additional powers, which enable the Secretary of State to take action to arrange for the weeds to be cleared and recover the cost of doing so from the occupier, if necessary through the courts. If the occupier of the land cannot be traced and he or she is not the owner of the land, the costs may be recovered from the owner, or failing that, a charge in respect of the costs may be placed on the land by order of the courts.

  In practice, it is rarely necessary to invoke the formal powers of the Weeds Act. DEFRA investigates each complaint about injurious weeds on its merits, but gives priority to complaints where there is a threat to farmland, farming activities and on farm diversified equine activities. Once DEFRA officials have made the occupier of land aware of the presence of injurious weeds, the matter can usually be resolved satisfactorily through co-operation and advice, without taking statutory action.

  Ag icultural Tenancies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to bring forward legislation to amend the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. [61541]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently considering the recommendations made in the report prepared for DEFRA by Plymouth university evaluating the operation of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. We are also considering the recommendations on tenancy issues made by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. As part of this process we are currently consulting stakeholders.

  We will make our initial thoughts on both reports known when we respond to the Policy Commission report in the autumn. If we conclude that legislative changes might be appropriate, we will consult further on the detail of those changes before bringing legislation forward.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what subjects and on which dates her Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52503]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department is committed to the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by the Minister for Young People in
  220W
  November 2001. On 12 June, the Department published an action plan setting out how it will implement these principles and give children and young people a real say in the DEFRA policies and services that affect them.

  Endangered Species
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the timetable for the proposed review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997; [59739]

  (2) when she plans to (a) begin and (b) complete the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997; and if she will make a statement; [59735]

  (3) if she will start the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 before the summer. [59738]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 501W.

  The first stage of the review—discussions within Government—is under way, and should be completed by the end of June. Pre-consultations, to gather views from interested parties on the Government's initial proposals and the scope of the review, will then take place over the summer.

  How quickly the full formal public consultation exercise can begin will depend on what arises from the pre-consultation process, and whether it necessitates further discussion within Government and with other parties. It should begin before the end of the year and will last for three months.

  Proposals for any changes to the existing regulations as a result of the review will then be drawn up.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which organisations she plans to consult(a) prior to and (b) during the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Regulations) 1997; and at what stage in the process she plans to consult them. [59736]

  Mr. Meacher
  Pre-consultations will take place over the summer with: interested Government Departments (including HM Customs and Excise and the territorial administrations); the Association of Chief Police Officers (and its Scotland and Northern Ireland counterparts); the Government's scientific advisers on conservation matters; the Sustained Users' Network; Wildlife Link (including WWF-UK); and the Partnership for Action Again t Wildlife Crime.

  We will make every effort to ensure that everyone who is affected by or who has an interest in the review is included in the formal public consultation process later this year.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. [59737]
  221W
  Mr. Meacher
  I have so far received over 150 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and a handful of letters direct from members of the public. WWF-UK officers have also been in regular contact with me and with my officials.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of her Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56311]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of jobs under the remit of DEFRA that are located in Scotland is as follows:

  Number of jobs

  Percentage

  (a) Core DEFRA

  93

  1.29

  (b) Executive agencies

  52

  0.92

  (c) NDPBs

  147.5

  1.03

  Six NDPB jobs have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997.

  Whales
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the members of her Department's consultative forum on whaling. [57500]

  Mr. Morley
  The current members of the Consultative Forum on Whaling are as follows:

  Campaign Whale

  Earthkind

  Environmental Investigation Agency

  Greenpeace

  International Fund for Animal Welfare

  The Mammal Society

  Marine Conservation Society

  RSPCA

  Seawatch Foundation

  Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

  Wildlife and Countryside Link

  The Wildlife Trusts

  WWF International

  WWF-UK

  Young People's Trust for the Environment.

  Departmental Communications
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 662W, on departmental communications, what the cost was of (a) preparing; (b) printing and (c) processing the consultation papers, information documents and forms. [55603]

  Margaret Beckett
  holding answer 10 May 2002]: The aggregated costs of preparation, printing, and processing are as follows. Obtaining figures of expenditure separated according to the categories set out in this question could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.
  222W

  (a) 38 consultation papers were issued at a cost of £126,223.00.

  (b) 418 items categorised as circulars/information literature documents were produced at a cost of £852,649.00.

  (c) 225 forms targeted at farmers and ancillary organisations at a cost of £202,965.00.

  The mailing costs associated with delivering these documents was £831,049.00.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will exempt agricultural shows from the 20-day standstill period for animal movements. [4346]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The rules applicable to the movement of livestock to and from agricultural shows will be kept under review to ensure that they are proportionate to the disease risks involved. For the time being veterinary advice is that it remains appropriate for stock moving to a show either to respect any standstill on the premises of departure, and to impose a 20-day standstill on their return, or for the show animal(s) to be isolated for 20 days on their home premises before departure and after their return.

  The 20-day standstill is at the centre of the interim livestock movement restrictions currently in force to guard against a future outbreak. Scientific and veterinary advice is that it aids detection of disease and slows disease spread. A number of exemptions from the standstill have been introduced, on veterinary advice, in order to help livestock farmers without causing an unacceptable increase in disease risk. These interim arrangements are currently under review, but whatever changes may be made to the interim rules this summer, the Government intend to take full account of any relevant findings from the FMD inquiries before it reaches a final view on the role that a 20-day standstill might play in the long-term controls over livestock movements.

  Recycling
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentives she gives to local authorities to encourage the development and introduction of recycling facilities. [59746]

  Mr. Meacher
  Statutory performance standards for recycling and composting have been set to drive up performance by local authorities as part of the Government's waste strategy. The Government are committed to the achievement of these targets and will intervene if necessary to ensure they are delivered.

  Local public service agreements provide opportunities for authorities to commit themselves to exceeding the statutory recycling targets and to be rewarded with additional resources for doing so.

  Spending Review 2000 increased both the general revenue support to local authorities on waste management services and specific, ring-fenced, funding. A new £140 million fund has been created for local authority waste minimisation and recycling projects. The fund covers two years, and bids for the first year of funding were invited by 30 April 2002. They are currently being

  223W
  assessed by DEFRA policy officials and an expert panel consisting of various waste, local authority and community sector experts.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what Government procedures are in place to monitor the(a) levels and (b) types of recycling being undertaken by local authorities in relation to normal daily disposal of refuse from households. [59745]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Best Value Performance Indicators, local authorities in England make annual returns on the percentage of the total tonnage of household waste arisings which have been sent for recycling (BV82a) or composting (BV82b). In addition, my Department's annual Municipal Waste Management Survey collects information on different types of materials collected for recycling and composting. For example, the Municipal Waste Management Survey shows that recycling of household waste plastics increased to 13,000 tonnes in 1999–2000, compared to 8,000 tonnes for the previous year.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the Control and Reduction of Pollution Caused by the Discharge of Hydrocarbons and other Dangerous Substances at Sea is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what he annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61708]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Advisory Committee on the Control and Reduction of Pollution Caused by the Discharge of Hydrocarbons and other Dangerous Substances at Sea (known as ACPH) was established in 1980 under Decision Number 80/686/EEC of 25/6/1980 of the European Parliament and the Council. The committee was composed of representatives of member states and was chaired by the European Commission. The terms of reference of the committee were as follows:

  1. To advise the Commission, at the request of the latter or on its own initiative, on all problems concerning the implementation of Community measures for the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea; and,

  2. To allow the collection of existing information and experience gained in the member states, on ways of controlling and reducing pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea, thus facilitating the co-ordination of measures taken or planned at national, international or Community level.

  This was amended by Decision Number 85/208/EEC, which expanded the focus of the committee from "hydrocarbons discharged at sea" to "oil and other harmful substances discharged at sea".

  This advisory committee provided valuable advice on Commission proposals and its members—who were high-level government experts—acted as the interface between the services of the Commission and the corresponding national administrations. In December 2000 the Commission decided to develop a new committee to
  224W
  address marine pollution issues under new European rules and regulations. Therefore, the Management Committee on Marine Pollution was established under Decision Number 2850/2000/EC of 20/12/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council. This set up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution. A similar question on the role and cost of this group was answered in column 188W, question number 56809 of the 21 May edition of Hansard.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of ordinary written questions for her Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58979]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is in the table.

  Percentage

  Named days—PQs answered on time

  Written questions— PQs answered within 5 days

  2001

  June

  2

  42

  July

  8

  22

  August

  n/a

  n/a

  September

  n/a

  n/a

  October

  19

  56

  November

  20

  60

  December

  24

  32

  2002

  January

  20

  58

  February

  20

  53

  March

  16

  60

  April

  7

  53

  May

  9

  32

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which ministers and officials have(a) been invited to give evidence and (b) given evidence to the Lessons Learned inquiry; and if she will make a statement. [61580]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002] This is a matter for the Lessons Learned inquiry. As indicated on its website, the inquiry has held a series of meetings with

  225W
  key Ministers, senior officials and organisations involved in the handling of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals, by type, were slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak on the 13 infected premises in Wigtownshire which returned negative blood tests. [56624]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The following animals were slaughtered on the 13 infected premises in Wigtownshire:

  3,539 cattle

  3,572 sheep

  55 pigs.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) cattle, (b) sheep, (c) pigs and (d) other animals were slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak on the basis of (i) contiguous premises, (ii) three kilometre premises, (iii) slaughter on suspicion and (iv) other reasons as a result of the two infected premises which returned positive blood tests in Wigtownshire; and how many animals of each type were slaughtered on the infected premises themselves. [56623]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The table sets out the animals it was necessary to slaughter for disease control purposes as a result of the two infected premises in Wigtownshire.

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Contiguous premises

  3,485

  2,424

  —

  3k cull

  952

  8,801

  2

  Dangerous contacts

  2,049

  1,462

  —

  299 cattle, 803 sheep and 27 pigs were slaughtered on the infected premises themselves.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what additional steps she is taking to prevent the importation of foot and mouth virus during the World cup finals in South Korea; [57141]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the risk posed to UK livestock by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in South Korea. [57140]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: In recent weeks, we issued advice to travellers, via the Football Association website and the British Consulate in Seoul, not to visit farms and to either keep to the current personal import allowance of 1 kg of meat co ked in a hermetically sealed container or, preferably, not to bring any meat at all to the UK. In addition we sent letters to 5,000 World cup ticket holders reiterating this information. We have also advised our port and airport enforcement authorities of the outbreak of foot and mouth in South Korea.

  South Korea is not a country that is authorised to export meat/animals to the EU. Veterinary advice is that the risk of travellers bringing foot and mouth disease back from South Korea is not significant. Most games are taking place in Japan, which does not have foot and mouth disease. As part of the Government's Action Plan, we will
  226W
  continue to gather intelligence to support the risk assessment currently under way, this will inform decisions about the nature of the risks and actions to be taken to reduce the risk of exotic diseases entering the country.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional staff resources she has allocated to the Rural Payments Agency this year to handle payments under the beef support schemes. [61568]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Rural Payments Agency staff at offices across the country are giving priority to the processing of bovine subsidy claims for payment. Additional staff have been recruited and existing staff are working extra hours and at weekends in order to process claims for payments and to resolve queries as quickly as possible.

  In addition, the RPA currently has a large team of short-term staff based at the offices of the British Cattle Movement Service checking queries against the cattle tracing system database.

  The total cost of undertaking the additional checks required to make payments will be in the region of £3.8 million, this includes provision for staff working overtime.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Ministers were first informed that the Rural Payments Agency would be unable to complete payments for the 2001 beef support schemes by 30 June. [61566]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: My noble Friend the Under-Secretary was advised on 15 May 2002 of the Rural Payments Agency's inability to complete all payments under the 2001 bovine subsidy schemes by 30 June 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many beef producers she expects not to have received all due beef support payments by 30 June. [61571]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: At this stage it is predicted that approximately 38 per cent. of Beef Special Premium (BSPS), 88 per cent. of Suckler Cow Premium (SCPS), 63 per cent. of Extensification Premium (EPS) and 30 per cent. of Slaughter Premium (SPS) claimants may not have been paid in full until after the 30 June deadline. However, producers claiming BSPS, SCPS and the Slaughter Premium Schemes should have already received their advance payments equating to 80 per cent. of the premium due.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total value of beef support payments due to producers for 2001 which will not have been paid by 30 June. [61570]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The current estimate provided by the RPA is that approximately £47 million will remain outstanding at 30 June. This represents 16 per cent. of the total projected

  227W
  bovine scheme payments due to have been completed by that date. This figure includes the unpaid extensification element.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Rural Payments Agency began to cross-check beef supp rt scheme applications against the UK Cattle Tracing System. [61578]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Rural Payments Agency did not come into existence until 16 October 2001. However, before that date, cross-checks had already begun to be undertaken by the Department.

  Beef Special Premium Scheme claims were checked against previous animal documentation before the BCMS Cattle Tracing System (CTS) was set up. After the database became operative, these basic identification checks were run against CTS data. On the other hand, checks on the identity of the older female animals which form the basis of Suckler Cow Premium claims were not undertaken against the database until last summer.

  More extensive checks on the location of animals during periods of retention required by EU legislation have been introduced more recently and are causing particular difficulty.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cost of overtime payments in the current year to staff at the Rural Payments Agency who are working on payment under the beef compensation schemes. [61567]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: No differentiation was made in arriving at the projected costs between the use of overtime or of additional temporary staff. Each RPA site is utilising additional staff and overtime on the most suitable basis, taking into account local conditions, particularly the availability of accommodation to house additional staff, and the capacity of permanent staff to work overtime.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) permanent and (b) temporary staff are employed by the Rural Payments Agency to process payments due to beef producers in respect of the 2001 beef support schemes. [61569]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Details of staff numbers currently involved in some form with the processing of bovine subsidy claims for payment are as follows:

  Scheme

  Permanent staff

  Temporary staff

  Beef special premium/slaughter

  332

  152

  Premium schemes

  177

  35

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  29

  2

  Extensification payment scheme

  0

  65

  Total

  538

  254

  Sustainable Development Strategy
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish the forthcoming DEFRA Sustainable Development Strategy; and if she will make a statement. [63424]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have today published DEFRA's Sustainable Development Strategy—Foundations for our Future'.

  'Foundations for our Future' clarifies what sustainable development means in practice for DEFRA's policy development and decision making, as well as its own operations. In particular the strategy:
  sets out the principles and processes which DEFRA needs to adopt to ensure all its policies address economic, social and environmental objectives at the same time;
  identifies DEFRA policy areas which pose the greatest challenges or can make the greatest contribution to the achievement of sustainable development, with a set of indicators to measure progress in these areas; and
  looks at the scope to contribute to sustainable development through DEFRA's own impacts (including energy, waste, travel, staff policies and procurement).

  The strategy also commits my Depa tment to review annually the progress that we make against the principles, commitments and priorities that are included within the strategy. This review process will be open and participative, involving DEFRA's staff and stakeholders.

  I have placed copies of the strategy in the Library of the House. It is also available at: http://defraweb/environment/sustainable/index.htm.

HEALTH

  Arthritis
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a national system for monitoring arthritis. [59131]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently no plans to introduce a national system for monitoring arthritis. However, the importance of good arthritis services, particularly for the health and well being of older people is recognised in the National Service Framework for Older People. Arthritis is set as the next priority for development within the ten-year framework.

  Emergency Acute Facilities
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the provision of emergency acute facilities in remote rural areas. [59132]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the responsibility of primary care trusts to commission accessible high quality services that can meet the needs of people living in rural areas.

  Any substantial changes in the pattern of such services must be the subject of full public consultation, and in relation to any contested proposals, my right hon. Friend will make final decisions only after a full assessment of the case for change.

  Smoking
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of smoking cessation policies in Worcestershire. [59133]

  Ms Blears
  Smoking cessation services in the west midlands are assessed quarterly by the Regional Director of Public Health. The Smoking Advice Service in Worcestershire has rapidly developed across primary and secondary care, and in community settings since January 2001, and is now demonstrating good performance, with quit rates higher than regional and national averages.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review procedures under the Mental Health Act 1983 which delay the provision of suitable treatment. [59134]

  Jacqui Smith
  The modernisation of mental health services through the National Service Framework, the NHS Plan investment of £300 million by 2004, and reform of legislation proposed in the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act 1983" will provide effective and safe services more easily and quickly.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to mental health and social care trusts regarding the provision of specialist mental health services for black and ethnic minority users. [59147]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has issued guidance on specialist mental health services including:The National Service Framework for Mental Health;
  The Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide.

  All departmental guidance stresses that services must be able to meet the needs of black and ethnic minority service users.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he is doing to remove the stigma surrounding mental health in relation to the delivery of services. [61897]

  Jacqui Smith
  The 'Mind out for mental health' campaign is a sustained programme of activity with partners in the voluntary sector, the media and business working together to change attitudes and behaviour surrounding mental health. In 2002–03, we shall be widening the focus of the employers' strand of the campaign to address the stigma experienced by people with mental health problems in the national health service. The Department also supports the Royal College of Psychiatrists' 'Changing Minds' campaign to combat stigmatisation of people with mental health problems by, among others, healthcare professionals, specifically doctors.

  Cancer
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times for cancer treatment. [59135]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out our strategy to reduce cancer waiting times with the ultimate goal being that no one should wait longer that one month from 230W
  urgent referral for suspected cancer to the start of treatment, except for a good clinical reason or through the patient's personal choice.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allocation the health authorities have received from the money earmarked for palliative care under the Cancer Plan in 2001–02. [60676]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have pledged in the NHS Cancer Plan that funding for specialist palliative care services, including hospices, will increase by £50 million per annum by 2004. This investment is included in the overall national health service investment for implementing the Cancer Plan. We are currently reviewing the outturn position for 2001–02 and the progress in that year.

  Health Inequalities
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing to reduce health inequalities between different social groups, with special reference to the incidence of cancer. [59136]

  Ms Blears
  We have put in place major cross-Government programmes of work to address the risk factors for cancer and tackle health inequalities. The Cancer Plan made a commitment to reduce the prevalence of smoking among manual groups to 26 per cent. by 2010. We are taking this forward with a comprehensive programme to tackle smoking, including NHS smoking cessation services and a public information campaign. We are also running a Five-a-Day Programme to increase access to, and consumption of fruit and vegetables. The New Opportunities Fund is providing funding to set up 66 five-a-day community programmes led by primary care trusts based in deprived areas. We have also recently announced a new £2.5 million programme of community physical activity pilots that will be set up in Neighbourhood Renewal areas. This work underpins the two national health inequalities targets in the areas of life expectancy and infant mortality, announced by the Secretary of State last year.

  NHS Patients (Overseas Treatment)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been treated in France in the last 12 months. [59138]

  Mr. Hutton
  109 patients were treated in France earlier this year under the pilot scheme to refer national health service patients overseas for routine elective surgery.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NICE to publish its guidance on the use of atypical anti-psychotics for people with schizophrenia; and if he will make a statement. [59139]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on newer atypical anti-psychotics on 6 June 2002. In addition the Department of Health has commissioned NICE to develop a clinical guideline on the management of schizophrenia, to cover treatment by drugs, including atypical anti-psychotics, and psychological therapies. This work is currently in train.
  231W
  Direct ons have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. From 1 January 2002, the NHS has three months from the date of publication of each Technology Appraisal Guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects NICE to publish its guidance on the use of atypical anti-psychotics for people with schizophrenia; and if he will make a statement; [59860]

  (2) what plans he has to remove postcode prescribing in relation to atypical anti-psychotics for people with schizophrenia; and if he will make a statement. [59861]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on newer atypical anti-psychotics on 6 June 2002.

  Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. From 1 January 2002, the national health service has three months from the date of publication of each technology appraisal guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.

  Bed Blocking (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many blocked beds there are in Oxfordshire; and if he will make a statement. [59140]

  Ms Blears
  The Government recognise that delayed discharges are a problem across the south-east. Health and local authorities are working together to take action to improve the situation. In October 2001 the Government announced an extra £300 million in the "Cash for Change" initiative to tackle bed blocking in 2001–02 and 2002–03. Last year Oxfordshire received £706,000, this year £1.489 million.

  All information, collected centrally, on delayed discharge has been placed in the Library. Information for quarter 4 of 2001–02 shows that Oxfordshire had 52 delayed discharges. This is the most recent period for which figures are currently available.

  Health Policy (Schoolchildren)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last had discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about the health of schoolchildren. [59141]

  Ms Blears
  My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Public Health met the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in February this year to talk about inequalities and during this meeting the health of school age children was discussed. The two Departments work very closely to ensure that the health needs of school age children are met and work on a number of initiatives together, including the National Service Framework for Children, the healthy schools programme, national school fruit scheme, Special Educational Needs Code of Practice and Sure Start.

  Air-related Thromboembolic Disease
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the World Health Organisation's research into air-related thromboembolic disease. [59143]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health, together with the Department for Transport, fully supports the aims of the World Health Organisation's research into air travel and venous thromboembolism, and has agreed to provide up to £1.2 million in funding for this work. The two year project will start in June 2002.

  Day Surgery
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to expand the number of day surgery units in hospitals. [59144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are investing in the big est building programme in the history of the national health service, including the new day surgery unit at Bassetlaw district general hospital.

  We are also building a new model of diagnostic and treatment centres, which will make a significant contribution to increasing capacity for day surgery. In addition, we are working towards maximising the capacity in existing day surgery units, and I have asked Professor Ara Darzi to develop a strategy to help units to improve their throughput.

  Residential Home Beds
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds for elderly people in residential homes have been lost between May 1997 and the latest available date. [59145]

  Jacqui Smith
  Between 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2001, the number of residential care beds in homes for older people decreased by 1,550 from 261,620 to 260,070, a drop of under 1 per cent.

  Chiropody Services
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the provision of chiropody services in the national health service. [59146]

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the provision of chiropody services on the NHS. [59157]

  Jacqui Smith
  No specific assessment has been made. There are national variations in chiropody services. This may be because local national health service organisations clinically prioritise access to their services to ensure they meet the needs of their most at risk patients. The clinical criteria used to prioritise will be determined locally by primary care trusts.

  Retained Human Organs
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have retained human organs without permission from the relatives of the deceased since 1997; and how many are continuing this practice. [59148]
  233W
  Mr. Lammy
  These data are not collected centrally. General information about organ retention in NHS trusts is available in the Chief Medical Officer's census report1.

  The Chief Medical Officer issued interim guidance in March 2000 requiring NHS trusts to obtain consent from spouses or other relatives to any organ retention from post-mortem examination. This is to ensure that the requirements of the Human Tissue Act 1961 are met effectively.

  We have recently consulted on a comprehensive, new code of practice on families and post mortems and on a range of post mortem consent forms. We shall shortly be seeking views on whether changes to the current law are necessary.
  1 "Retention of Organs at Post Mortem: Census of hospitals in England" report available at: www.doh.gov.uk/organcensus

  Age Discrimination
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to tackle age discrimination in the health service. [59149]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People, published in March 2001, sets the elimination of age discrimination in accessing national health service or social care as a priority. To help achieve this, it provides a programme of actions and milestones to be achieved over the next 10 years.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the promotion of racial equality in the NHS. [59150]

  Mr. Hutton
  Activity to promote race equality in the national health service is occurring on a number of fronts, including implementation of the NHS Plan, National Service Frameworks and within the NHS work force. On 31 May 2002 the Department published its "Race Equality Scheme" setting out a programme f action on promoting race equality.

  Operation Waiting Times (South-West)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the south-west had been waiting over 15 months for an NHS hospital operation in April. [59151]

  Ms Blears
  Data for March 2002 reported that there were two patients in the former south-west region waiting over 15 months for treatment. However, a waiting list review at the Royal United Hospital Bath National Health Service Trust has concluded that waiting list information reported by the trust in the year 2001–02 was inaccurate. Further examination of these waiting lists, published on 7 June, shows that 223 patients in March and 235 patients in April had been waiting for more than 15 months for in-patient treatment.

  By the end of June, all patients will be offered a date for operation.

  Cancer Research
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the Government use when allocating resourcing to cancer research. [59152]

  Ms Blears
  Total Government expenditure on research in any given year is not normally allocated in advance to specific diseases. Decisions depend on many variables including the quality of proposals received. By 2003–04, the Government will be spending an additional £20 million a year on the new national health service infrastructure for cancer research. This will mean that more cancer patients will have access to new and experimental treatments. In April 2002, the Government set up the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) in partnership with charities and industry. The NCRI is providing strategic oversight of cancer research across the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Teaching Primary Care Trusts
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of teaching primary care trusts. [59153]

  Mr. Hutton
  An essential aim of teaching primary care trusts (PCTs) is to develop posts that are both clinical and rooted in teaching, research and/or development. The objective is to provide additional patient care through the recruitment of extra clinicians in areas of need, complemented with the development of learning, sharing of knowledge and collaboration in research.

  Teaching PCTs will provide a resource for all PCTs to develop as learning organisations, in promoting a research and evidence-based approach and in supporting work force planning and development.

  11 teaching PCTs have been established, and a further 17 to 20 will be established by April 2003.

  Dorset and Somerset Health Authorities
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed(a) by the Dorset and Somerset health authority and (b) in administrative posts in the primary care trusts in both counties. [59154]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Modernisation (Trent Region)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital funding is available for upgrading and modernising hospitals in the Trent region in the current financial year. [59155]

  Mr. Lammy
  The area covered by the former Trent region has been allocated £191 million capital in 2002–03. Details of earmarked allocations are given in the table.

  Funds available in 2002–03

  Trent region

  £ million

  Initial capital planning total

  139

  Earmarked allocations

  Local capital modernisat on fund (LCMF)

  9

  Coronary heart disease (CHD)

  27

  Intermediate care

  2

  235W

  Funds available in 2002–03

  Trent region

  £ million

  Maternity units

  8

  Nightingale ward replacements

  5

  Nurseries

  1

  Total allocated (to date) for 2002–03

  191

  Suicide
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to reduce the suicide rate. [59156]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published the "National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England" for public consultation on 26 April 2002. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to prevent suicide. The strategy describes key actions already taken, and proposes further actions to be taken, to help meet the target set out in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  Braille
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the time it takes to transfer a book to Braille will be reduced under the proposed Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill. [61148]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply

  The Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill will remove the need to obtain copyright clearance for each book that is to be converted to Braille for visually impaired people by an educational establishment or not-for-profit body, except where the book is already commercially available in Braille. Obtaining this copyright clearance quite frequently takes six months or longer.

  Cardiac Care
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart bypass operations were carried out in NHS hospitals in each year since 1995. [60546]

  Ms Blears
  The number of heart bypass operations carried out in the national health service in England, each year since 1995, are as follows:

  Coronary artery bypass grafting

  Number

  1995–96

  21,599

  1996–97

  22,700

  1997–98

  22,129

  1998–99

  23,996

  1999–2000

  23,698

  2000–01

  24,387

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to raise awareness among general practitioners and coroners of cardiac risk in the young. [59631]

  Ms Blears
  We have put in place major cross-Government programmes of work to prevent coronary heart disease by ensuring that children have access to a healthy diet, have opportunities to be physically active 236W
  and are aware of the dangers of smoking. This includes investment from the new opportunities fund for a physical education and sports programme, a national school fruit scheme and a new initiative called Smokescreen to reduce smoking among teenagers. The Department is also developing a document on the health benefits of exercise which will aim to influence policy making and raise awareness about the importance of physical activity among primary care and local authorities.

  In due course the children's national service framework (NSF) will produce national standards across the national health service and social ser ices for children. However, its scope has yet to be finalised and it is too early in the development of the NSF to advise what guidance may be made available to general practitioners.

  In addition, the paediatric and congenital cardiac services review group has been established to consider the recommendations from the Kennedy report that specifically relate to health care services and treatment for children with congenital heart disease. The group has also been asked to recommend quality standards for paediatric and congenital cardiac services. The review group will report in 2002.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 305W, on hospital discharges, when his Department expects to complete its consultations on the penalty system for social services departments; [60812]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002, Official Report, column 305W, on hospital discharges, what (a) representations he has received and (b) estimates he has made about the early discharge of patients from hospital. [60813]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proposals for a system of financial incentives to tackle delayed discharge are still being developed. We shall consult fully on the details of the scheme.

  Stroke
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government have invested in stroke treatment since 1997; and what plans he has to increase this. [60136]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 June 20021: The specific information requested is not collected centrally. However, as a result of the Budget, the national health service in England will receive an annual average real terms growth in resources of 7.4 per cent. for the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about allocation of this increased funding will be announced later this year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are contained in the NHS Plan to help the Afro-Caribbean community to combat their higher rate of stroke. [60135]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: The NHS Plan sets out a comprehensive programme of action to tackle the risk factors for chronic diseases, including stroke, and tackle health inequalities. This includes a five-a-day programme to increase access to, and

  237W
  consumption of fruit and vegetables, work with industry to improve the overall balance of diet, including salt, sugar and fat in food, and world leading smoking cessation services. Local strategies on promoting healthy eating and physical activity, reducing smoking, and reducing overweight and obesity are already being developed as part of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. The national service framework for older people makes clear that these activities should take into account both differences in lifestyle and the impact of cultural beliefs.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61018]

  Mr. Hutton
  The final accounts for national health service trusts, health authorities, primary care trusts and primary care groups have yet to be collected for 2001–02, but the current estimate of the hospital and community health services pay bill in 2001–02 is £22.7 billion (46 per cent. of the overall NHS planned net expenditure).

  The overall cost of the 2002–03 pay award is 4 per cent., but it is not yet possible to estimate the full cost of staff costs as a roportion of overall expenditure because the costs of pay drift, increase in staff numbers and other additional costs are not yet available.

  Complaint Procedures
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what formal procedures are available for patients who wish to record a complaint about the quality of care and treatment they have received in hospital. [61451]

  Mr. Lammy
  Patients, or someone on their behalf with their consent, can complain about the service or treatment they have received from the NHS using the NHS complaints procedure. The health service ombudsman can investigate complaints where the NHS complaints procedure has not successfully resolved the complainants concerns.

  Heart Surgery Centre (Wolverhampton)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust heart surgery centre to open. [61426]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust heart surgery centre is planned to open in May 2004. The project plan is on target and building works have commenced.

  Patient Confidentiality
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with representatives of the(a) Medical Protection Society, (b) Patient Information Advisory Group, (c) Medical Defence Union and (d) GPC regarding patient confidentiality in the last two months. [61420]
  238W
  Mr. Lammy
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary met Professor Joan Higgins, chair of the Patient Information Advisory Group, on 7 May 2002 to discuss patient confidentiality issues.

  Criminal Records Bureau Certification
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances general practitioners will be obliged to complete a Criminal Records Bureau certification form; and what details will need to be provided to complete such a form. [61423]

  Mr. Hutton
  Section 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 amended section 115 of the Police Act 1997 to permit the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to provide enhanced criminal record certificates in respect of general practitioners who are included or seeking inclusion to a health authority medical, supplementary or services list.

  The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the health authority in assessing the doctor's suitability to provide primary care services on their behalf had the fullest possible report from the CRB. Criminal record certificates might well help to keep an unsuitable practitioner off the health authority lists and out of primary care.

  The circumstances in which these certificates will have to be provided by general practitioners will be specified in regulations. Before such regulations are made we will consult the general practitioners' committee of the British Medical Association on the content.

  The application form that has to be completed by any member of the public applying to the CRB for a criminal record certificate is prescribed in SI 2002/233 the Police Act (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002—schedule 2. A copy is available in the Library.

  Nurses (Travel Expenses)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how reimbursement for travel expenses is calculated; and what the value is of such reimbursement for each grade of staff nurse. [61427]

  Mr. Hutton
  Travelling expenses for national health service staff on national terms are the subject of an agreement of the general Whitley council. Expenses are generally based on reimbursement of receipted costs incurred or, in the case of staff using their own care, by payment of mileage allowances. The current rates of mileag allowances are set out in advance letter (GC) 2/2000, a copy of which is in the Library. The value of such reimbursement does not vary by grade of nurse.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of health care services in their area he expects primary care trusts will be responsible for commissioning in(a) 2002, (b) 2003, (c) 2004 and (d) 2005. [61441]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently 303 primary care trusts (PCTs) established, with 99 per cent. of these being level four PCTs. Level four PCTs commission services, run community hospitals and provide community health services.
  239W
  Subject to legislation, PCTs will take on the responsibility for a greater range of functions including the commissioning of all acute and specialised services. By 2004, PCTs will be responsible for 75 per cent. of the total national health service resources.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how deficits arising in health authorities or in strategic health authorities in 2002–03 will be taken into account in allocating money to PCTs; [46415]

  (2) whether health authority deficits will be allocated to PCTs; and if he will make a statement on how such allocations will be calculated and made. [46417]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: Resources will continue to be allocated on the basis of the relative needs of primary care trust populations.

  Under the Government's resource accounting arrangements, all health authorities are required to contain their annual expenditure within an agreed resource limit allocation. As a consequence there should be no health authority or strategic health authority deficits.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will strengthen the management of primary care trusts operating in areas of social deprivation. [59128]

  Mr. Hutton
  All primary care trusts have a challenging agenda to deliver the NHS Plan. We are taking steps to ensure that they have the means to strengthen their management capacity by lifting the cap on primary care trust management costs. The Modernisation Agency has also in place a number of initiatives designed to support and strengthen the organisational development of primary care trusts as well as strengthening the management capacity through initiatives such as the national primary and care trust development programme and the chief executives development programme.

  From 1 April 2002 legislation provides for primary care trusts to have a director of public health on their boards. The focus of their activity will be on local neighbourhoods and communities, leading and driving programmes to improve health and reduce inequalities. They will also play a powerful role in forging partnerships with, and influencing, all local agencies to ensure the widest possible participation in the health and health care agenda.

  Hearing Aids
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a patient with an NHS-provided digital hearing aid is entitled to a replacement digital hearing and continued support with it if they move from living within an NHS trust that routinely provides digital hearing aids to an NHS trust that provides only analogue hearing aids. [61079]

  Jacqui Smith
  If the services commissioned by a trust locally do not meet the needs of a particular patient, then general practitioners (GPs) do have freedom to refer elsewhere using the out of area arrangements. If a patient requires replacement of a national health service digital hearing aid, and the local service has not received the training and equipment to fit such aids, the GP could refer the patient back to the department from which the aid was supplied or to an other which d es have the necessary infrastructure to fit digital hearing aids.
  240W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when each of the NHS trusts that have been selected to become part of the modernising hearing aid services project will start routinely issuing digital hearing aids. [61080]

  Jacqui Smith
  The modernising hearing aid services project is being managed on the Department's behalf by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. The project management team has contacted each of the 30 sites which will be joining the project this calendar year and are in discussion with and in the process of visiting each service. The current service is assessed (obtaining details of the sites involved, staffing, information technology needs etc.), the new service discussed and a timetable for modernisation agreed. The first of these sites should have new systems in place and staff trained and fitting digital hearing aids by the beginning of October and all 30 should be fitting them by the end of March 2003.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initial investment is required of NHS trusts in order to apply for funding for the provision of digital hearing aids; and if he will make a statement. [61515]

  Jacqui Smith
  When deciding which national health service trusts would join the modernising hearing aid services project in 2002–03, we wrote to all trusts not involved in the first wave of the project, inviting them to express an interest in becoming a second wave site. We asked that any such expressions of interest should be signed by the appropriate primary care trusts who would be expected to contribute 25 per cent. of additional staffing costs and 25 per cent. of any additional cost incurred in supplying digital rather than analogue aids.

  Applicants were informed that sites would be selected on the basis of preparedness, willingness to improve access for patients by providing some services from a community base, whether they were paediatric audiology departments transferring patients to existing adult sites, whether they had interest in and willingness to implement universal new-born hearing screening and bearing in mind the need to provide reasonable geographical spread of sites across the country.

  Sites must have the appropriate infrastructure, information technology equipment and trained staff, before they can fit digital hearing aids.

  Hospital Safety
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a task group with high level participation from the Department of Health, the Fire Service and the Fire Policy Unit to consider the implications of the fire at Warrington hospital for the structure of hospital buildings, with special reference to the NHS building programme. [61407]

  Jacqui Smith
  Fire engineers from NHS Estates represent the Department on the national fire policy advisory group. This group comprises of members from the Chief and Assistant Chief Officers Association, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office, the Institute of Building Control, the Association of County Councils and the Fire Protection Association. In addition, the Department is represented on key British standard panels relating to fire safety. I will be asking my officials to ensure the implications of the fire at
  241W
  Warrington general hospital are considered carefully. In addition, NHS Estates will be undertaking fire reviews of all new hospital schemes to ensure all necessary standards are met.

  Antipsychotic Medicines
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the prescribing of antipsychotic medicines to patients in intermediate care; and if he will make a statement; [61506]

  (2) what advi e his Department issues regarding the prescribing of antipsychotic medicines for elderly patients; and if he will make a statement. [61505]

  Jacqui Smith
  No representations have been received regarding the prescribing of antipsychotic medicines to patients in intermediate care. In September 1998 we published a report on general practitioner prescribing support with the national prescribing centre. This document provides many examples of good practice including advice and support on prescribing in residential and nursing homes and involving community pharmacists.

  Implementation of the national service framework for older people will ensure effective prescribing and administration of medication for older people. To support this, consideration is being given to the inclusion of a clinical guideline on the management of dementia within the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's programme of work. Such a guideline would cover the use of antipsychotic medication in older people.

  Dental Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sure start programmes include initiatives that promote children's dental health. [60867]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: This information is not available centrally. However, many local sure start programmes offer advice and information to parents to promote oral and dental health in young children, and the sure start unit is working closely with the Department on the involvement of sure start programmes in the "Brushing for Life" scheme.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were awaiting in-patient treatment in the last two available months; and how many were waiting(a) over 12 months and (b) over 15 months for treatment. [60137]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: There were 319 in-patients and day cases waiting over 12 months, and no patients waiting over 15 months, at the end of March 2002. At the end of April 2002 there were 269 in-patients and day cases waiting over 12 months, and no patients waiting over 15 months for admission to hospital.

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average daily number of available 242W
  (a) beds and (b) wards open overnight was in each NHS (i) trust and (ii) region in England in each of the last two years; [61885]

  (2) what the occupancy rate was of beds in each NHS (a) region and (b) trust in England in each year since 1996; [61884]

  (3) what the average daily number of available beds in wards open 24 hours was in (a) acute, (b) geriatric, (c) mental illness, (d) learning disabilities and (e) maternity specialties in each (i) NHS region and (ii) trust in each year since 1997. [61777]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the average daily number of available and occupied beds for each national health service trust and NHS region from 1996–97 to 2000–01 is available from the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical students are expected to enter medical school in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [62057]

  Mr. Hutton
  As a result of the Government's acceptance of the recommendation in the medical work force standing advisory committee's 1997 report and the commitment made in the NHS Plan, almost 2,150 new medical school places were announced in England between 1999 and 2001 (an increase of 57 per cent.). This is the largest increase in medical school places since the nationa health service was established.

  In autumn 2001, medical school intake in England was almost 950 more than in 1997, and by autumn 2003 should be over 1,950 a year more than in autumn 1997 (a 52 per cent. increase).

  The planned intake to English medical schools in the next five years is as follows:

  Academic year

  Planned intake in England

  2002–03

  4,993

  2003–04

  5,707

  2004–05

  5,789

  2005–06

  5,894

  2006–07

  5,894

  Care Homes
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment the Government have made of the number of care homes which will be unable financially to meet the requirements of the Care Standards Act 2000, broken down by(a) constituency and (b) local authority and region; [61891]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the number of care homes which fall short of the standards set in the Care Standards Act 2000, due to come into force in 2006–07, broken down by (a) constituency and (b) local authority and region; [61887]
  243W
  (3) what provision the Government have made for people who will be displaced by their care home failing to meet the standards laid down in the Care Standards Act 2000, broken down by (a) constituency and (b) local authority and region; [61889]

  (4) what assistance the Government have made available towards the additional resources required by social services departments to meet the shortfall in provision for people who will be displaced by their care homes failing to meet the standards laid down in the Care Standards Act 2000; [61888]

  (5) what assessment the Government have made of the numbers of people who will be displaced by the Care Standards Act 2000, broken down by (a) constituency and (b) local authority and region. [61890]

  Jacqui Smith
  It will be for the National Care Standards Commission to decide in the particular circumstances of each individual home whether the home conforms to the standards necessary to meet the assessed needs of its residents. The standards were extensively consulted on and the Department has no evidence to suggest that large numbers of care homes will be unable to meet them. The Commission will form a more detailed picture of care homes' compliance with the national standards as it completes its first cycle of inspections of providers in England during 2002–03.

  Care home closures may occur for many reasons. It is for local authorities, in their role as commissioners of care, to have contingency plans in place, drawn up in consultation with service providers, to deal with care home closures. Local authorities have a responsibility for making alternative arrangements for anyone that they place in a home which subsequently closes.

  We have not allocated resources to social services departments specifically to meet any local short fall in care home provision. However, we are increasing total resources available for social services by an average of 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years (2003–04 to 2005–06). These increases follow average annual real terms increases of more than 3 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2002–03 including a 3.6 per cent. real terms increase this year (2002–03). These substantial increases in resources, in particular over the next three years, will enable local authorities to deliver the improvements to social services to which the Government are committed. Additional resources were also included in these budgets to help providers with the costs of meeting key national minimum standards. This means that local authorities have the resources they need to purchase services at realistic prices.

  Epilepsy
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the Government will ensure that there is effective communication between primary and secondary epilepsy care providers; [61895]

  (2) if the Government will conduct awareness-raising campaigns for epilepsy with (a) patients, (b) carers and (c) the general public; [61892]
  244W
  (3) if the Government will ensure that those experiencing their first epileptic seizure have access to an epilepsy specialist within 28 days; [61896]

  (4) if the Government will ensure that people with epilepsy receive check-ups every six months with their GP or epilepsy specialist to review their medication; [61893]

  (5) what the Government's policy is on the recommendation by the Chief Medical Officer in his annual report that it should put together an action plan for treatment of epilepsy within three months; [61886]

  (6) whether the Government seeks to ensure that (a) epilepsy related deaths are centrally recorded and (b) coroners are made aware of this; [61894]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken to warn those with epilepsy of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy; [61898]

  (2) what steps are being taken to prevent those at risk from developing epilepsy; [61899]

  (3) what steps are being taken to improve care for those with epilepsy; [61901]

  (4) what steps are being taken to reduce the number of people who die each year as a result of epilepsy. [61900]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has recently welcomed the publication of the Government funded national sentinel audit of epilepsy-related death. The audit looked at investigations into epilepsy deaths, care provided prior to death and contact with bereaved families. The Department has given a commitment to consider the recommendations of the audit and develop an action plan by September 2002 to try to improve epilepsy services and reduce the number of preventable deaths from epilepsy.

  The Department is also undertaking a range of initiatives to improve services for the care and management of people with epilepsy. For example, we have:
  Provided funding to the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to develop a "National Statement of Good Practice for the Treatment and Care of People who have Epilepsy", which was published in May 2002. The statement makes a series of recommendations for good quality epilepsy services. It is intended to facilitate commissioning and will be of use to national health service purchasers, providers and service users.
  Asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop a clinical guideline (due in summer 2004) for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. This will be supported by a technology appraisal (due autumn 2003) of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.
  Announced that the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions is expected to develop standards of care for specific neurological conditions, including epilepsy. The NSF is expected to be published in 2004. Implementation is expected to start from 2005.
  Developed the expert patients programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase will include people with epilepsy.
  Provided funding to the national society for epilepsy for its living well project. The project aims to promote independent living by providing locally based short-term courses for people with epilepsy to develop self-help and self-management techniqu s.

  Cataract Care
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the new cataract unit at the Surrey and Sussex Trust. [59124]

  Mr. Lammy
  The development of Limpsfield Ward, which specialises in Ophthalmology, has been to create a walk in one day unit for patients requiring cataract surgery. The development has included redesigned waiting, reception and admission areas, an additional assessment clinic room, additional space for consultants and their secretaries, a separate dedicated anaesthetic room and a dedicated operating theatre. This is all under one roof resulting in the patient only being in the unit for one and a half to two hours on the day of surgery. Waiting times are reducing rapidly, and the number of patients being treated has increased.

  Mobile Phones (Hospitals)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the technical reasons why mobile phones are prohibited from hospitals. [62704]

  Ms Blears
  The medical devices agency published a comprehensive device bulletin in March 1997 listing the effects of mobile communications on a wide range of medical devices (MDA DB 9702 March 1997). This research identified that some critical care and life support devices were adversely affected by the radiated fields from mobile phones, particularly if used within approximately 2.5 million of medical devices.

  Examples of typical adverse effects are lock up of software driven devices, spurious changes to set parameters, screen interference and interference to displayed electro-cardiographs.

  As there are various levels of risk to medical devices associated with the use of different mobile phone systems there is no outright prohibition on the use of mobile phones in hospitals. Trusts have been advised to develop local policies in order to manage the risk particularly in areas where critical care and life support devices may be used.

  Organ Donation
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the impact on the number of lives that would be saved each year if a system of presumed consent for organ donation were introduced. [59130]

  Mr. Lammy
  No such estimates have been made. Comparisons with other European countries, which operate a system of presumed consent show most have comparable levels of organ donation to the UK. The highest level of cadaveric donation is in Spain where consent to donation is always sought.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library his scientific evidence on which the recommendation from the Advisory Committee in Pesticides to alter advice provided to schools and parents in reducing the exposure of children to pesticide residues was based. [48324]
  246W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The scientific evidence on which the advisory committee on pesticides (ACP) based its advice on washing and peeling fruit and vegetables is contained in the relevant ACP committee papers which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Correspondence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter dated 27 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell relating to an inquiry by Mr. Moran of 130 Curtis Road, West Ewell, Surrey. [48210]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department could not trace this correspondence. The Department's ministerial correspondence unit has sought a copy of the correspondence.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters were received by each Minister in his Dep rtment in each month since June 1997. [59467]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. The report for 2001 was published on 24 May 2002,Official Report, columns 674–76W. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52434]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is shown in the table. There is a total net reduction of staff during this period of:Executive office level—36 reduction (-32.95 full-time equivalent)
  Administrative office level—105 reduction (-100.36 full-time equivalent)

  Administrative

  Executive Officer level

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  June 2001

  Casual

  10

  9.41

  2

  2.64

  Permanent

  12

  11.89

  3

  3.32

  Total

  22

  21.3

  5

  5.96

  July 2001

  Casual

  21

  18.18

  0

  -0.4

  Permanent

  30

  28.88

  9

  9

  Total

  51

  47.06

  9

  8.6

  August 2001

  Casual

  -17

  -15.83

  -2

  -1.81

  Permanent

  -4

  -2.96

  -5

  -5.13

  Total

  -21

  -18.79

  - 7

  -6.94

  September 2001

  Casual

  -13

  -11.08

  3

  3

  Permanent

  -11

  -11.68

  -5

  -4.33

  Total

  -24

  -22.76

  -2

  -1.33

  October 2001

  Casual

  1

  0.49

  -1

  -0.81

  Permanent

  6

  6.12

  -6

  -6.19

  Total

  7

  6.61

  -7

  -7

  247W

  Administrative

  Executive Officer level

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  November 2001

  Casual

  3

  3.01

  -1

  -1

  Permanent

  -8

  -8.18

  5

  5

  Total

  -5

  -5.17

  4

  4

  December 2001

  Casual

  -2

  -0.9

  0

  0

  Permanent

  -94

  -93.75

  -18

  -17.33

  Total

  -96

  -94.65

  -18

  -17.33

  January 2002

  Casual

  3

  3.29

  1

  0.83

  Permanent

  2

  1.61

  -1

  -1

  Total

  5

  4.9

  0

  -0.17

  February 2002

  Casual

  2

  1.68

  -1

  -0.83

  Permanent

  -9

  -8.1

  -4

  -3.54

  Total

  -7

  -6.42

  -5

  -4.37

  March 2002

  Casual

  -4

  -2.77

  -3

  -3

  Permanent

  -28

  -25.14

  -6

  -6

  Total

  -32

  -27.91

  -9

  -9

  April 2002

  Casual

  3

  2.79

  7

  7.63

  Permanent

  -8

  -7.32

  -13

  -13

  Total

  -5

  -4.53

  -6

  -5.37

  Grand Total

  -105

  -100.36

  -36

  -32.95

  Source:

  Department of Health PARIS personnel system

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation(a) has a website and (b) makes its minutes available on a website. [53899)

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The website for the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation was launched on 30 May. Information which will be available on the website includes a list of members, their declarations of interest, minutes, and terms of reference.

  It is also intended to use the website to advertise board vacancies. The website address is www.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/index.htm

  E.coli
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of E.coli infection there were in each of the last five years. [56959]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) for England and Wales and the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health in Scotland (SCIEH) receives reports from microbiology laboratories for E.coli blood stream isolates (bacteraemias) and E.coli 0157 faecal isolates. E.coli is the second most common cause of bacteraemia. The results for the past five years are as set out in the table.248W

  E.coli blood stream isolates (bacteraemias) and E.coli 0157 faecal isolates; England, Wales and Scotland, 1997 to 2002

  E.coli bacteraemias

  E.coli 0157 faecal isolates

  Year

  England and Wales

  Scotland1

  England and Wales

  Scotland1

  1997

  210,336

  1,572

  21,087

  423

  1998

  211,537

  1,672

  2890

  217

  1999

  211,329

  1,586

  21,084

  294

  2000

  311,032

  1,545

  2896

  197

  20014

  311,392

  1,499

  2768

  237

  Data sources:

  1 Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health

  2 PHLS website

  3 PHLS CDR Weekly

  4 Provisional data

  In addition, SCIEH received a further 237 reports of E.coli infection not specified as E.coli 0157 over the five-year period.

  For Northern Ireland, the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre received the following confirmed laboratory reports:

  E.coli total (all serotypes)

  E.coli 0157

  1997

  515

  30

  1998

  507

  29

  1999

  481

  54

  2000

  579

  54

  2001

  584

  52

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57371]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 561W.

  NICE
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what products have been(a) approved and (b) rejected for use in the NHS by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence since its inception. [58789]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) does not approve or reject products for use within the national health service. The role of NICE is to provide guidance for health care professionals and patients and their carers, that will help to inform their decisions about treatment and health care. NICE guidance does not override the responsibility of health care professionals to make appr priate decisions on the
  249W
  circumstances of individual patients. However, they are expected to take the guidance fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment.

  It is possible to place the technology appraisals published to date into the following categories:

  Recommendation

  Number of appraisals

  Recommended for routine use

  11

  Selective use

  27

  Research only

  4

  Total

  42

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to his Department since May 1999, broken down by(a) Scottish Executive Department, (b) subject and (c) date; [59511]

  (2) how many times his Office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by (a) Department approached, (b) subject and (c) date. [595121

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to her by the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 601W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58983]

  Mr. Lammy
  Available data1 are shown in the table:

  Percentage of:

  Month (current Session)

  Ordinary written questions answered within one week of tabling

  Named day written questions answered on day named

  June

  20

  30

  July

  39

  22

  September/October

  25

  22

  November

  7

  24

  December

  8

  42

  January

  18

  13

  February

  23

  14

  March

  4

  42

  April

  20

  28

  May2

  31

  32

  1 Based on 10 per cent. sample of the records

  2To date

  We are developing an improved database capable of providing more sophisticated analysis of information which should be introduced before the next parliamentary Session.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the land that his Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59054]

  Mr. Lammy
  No land held by the Department for its own use is being offered for sale nor are there any plans to do so in the next 12 months. This answer does not include the national health service.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59503]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is shown in the table:

  Month

  Number of press releases issued

  January 2002

  40

  February 2002

  45

  March 2002

  49

  April 2002

  32

  May 20022

  32

  1 To date. 22 May

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) in each month between May and December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [59502]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 436W.

  Devolution
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of the Department of Health, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from the Department of Health to the Scotland Office. [59510]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to her by the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 601W.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) cost per head of resident population and (b) average cost per prescription was of (i) tranquillisers and (ii) anti-depressants prescribed by GPs in each health authority in England in (A) the most recent available year and (B) the previous three years. [59724]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information for 2000 and 2001 is shown in the table. Information for 1999 and 1998 was provided in a reply to my hon. Friend to a previous question on 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 79W.
  251W

  The net integrated cost per head of population and the average net ingredient cost per prescription item for tranquillisers and antidepressants dispensed in the community in England by health authority, 2000 and 2001

  Tranquillisers

  Antidepressants

  Net ingredient cost per head of population

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription item

  Net ingredient cost per head of population

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription item

  Health authority in which items were dispensed

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  Avon

  2.5

  3.0

  5.78

  6.95

  5.8

  6.5

  13.91

  13.88

  Barking and Havering

  2.6

  3.3

  7.82

  9.68

  4.2

  4.6

  14.43

  14.40

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  3.0

  3.8

  9.40

  12.28

  4.5

  5.0

  16.16

  16.30

  Barnsley

  2.8

  3.4

  4.52

  5.84

  7.5

  8.2

  13.37

  13.39

  Bedfordshire

  2.1

  2.8

  5.86

  7.70

  5.1

  5.6

  14.20

  14.33

  Berkshire

  2.4

  2.8

  7.48

  8.84

  5.6

  6.1

  14.96

  14.76

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  2.3

  2.7

  6.77

  8.19

  5.1

  5.4

  15.57

  15.35

  Birmingham

  2.8

  3.7

  6.36

  8.22

  5.4

  6.0

  14.18

  14.53

  Bradford

  2.8

  3.5

  4.05

  4.71

  6.4

  6.8

  11.60

  11.16

  Brent and Harrow

  3.2

  4.1

  11.35

  14.44

  3.9

  4.4

  16.77

  17.14

  Buckinghamshire

  2.0

  2.5

  6.40

  7.60

  4.9

  5.5

  14.53

  14.59

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.3

  4.2

  6.05

  7.63

  7.5

  8.3

  13.57

  13.75

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  3.1

  3.7

  5.53

  6.77

  6.2

  6.8

  13.80

  13.56

  Cambridgeshire

  2.1

  2.6

  5.36

  6.75

  5.8

  6.4

  13.58

  13.45

  Camden and Islington

  3.9

  4.6

  8.65

  10.42

  6.4

  6.7

  17.91

  17.53

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2.4

  2.8

  4.46

  5.12

  7.0

  7.7

  12.64

  12.54

  County Durham and Darlington

  2.9

  3.5

  5.54

  6.65

  7.6

  8.2

  12.99

  12.77

  Coventry

  3.7

  4.5

  7.27

  8.66

  5.2

  5.8

  14.24

  14.13

  Croydon

  3.6

  4.4

  11.34

  14.01

  4.6

  4.9

  15.96

  15.92

  Doncaster

  2.4

  2.7

  4.85

  5.67

  7.0

  7.7

  12.31

  12.11

  Dorset

  2.6

  3.1

  5.52

  6.58

  6.1

  6.5

  12.67

  12.40

  Dudley

  2.2

  2.8

  6.55

  8.17

  5.5

  6.2

  14.92

  15.25

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  2.9

  3.6

  9.05

  11.36

  4.3

  4.6

  17.51

  17.29

  East Kent

  3.5

  4.2

  7.50

  9.39

  6.3

  6.8

  14.74

  14.77

  East Lancashire

  3.8

  4.5

  5.09

  5.83

  6.6

  7.5

  12.37

  12.45

  East London and The City

  3.4

  4.4

  11.62

  14.44

  4.2

  4.7

  15.21

  15.08

  East Riding and Hull

  3.0

  3.4

  5.94

  6.92

  5.6

  6.3

  12.55

  12.38

  East Surrey

  2.5

  3.0

  7.00

  8.30

  5.7

  6.2

  17.55

  17.39

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  3.8

  4.5

  6.08

  7.12

  7.3

  8.1

  15.82

  15.99

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  3.0

  3.6

  5.93

  7.15

  8.1

  8.8

  13.91

  13.59

  Gloucestershire

  2.2

  2.8

  5.26

  6.34

  6.7

  7.3

  14.98

  14.91

  Herefordshire

  1.9

  2.4

  5.92

  7.38

  5.2

  5.7

  13.64

  13.71

  Hertfordshire

  2.2

  2.8

  6.53

  8.30

  5.7

  6.2

  15.66

  15.53

  Hillingdon

  2.0

  2.6

  6.38

  8.10

  4.0

  4.5

  14.36

  14.32

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  2.8

  3.5

  6.91

  8.12

  7.6

  8.6

  15.44

  15.82

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  3.3

  4.0

  9.67

  11.75

  5.3

  5.6

  19.09

  1.92

  Kingston and Richmond

  2.5

  3.1

  7.22

  8.60

  4.9

  5.3

  16.30

  15.97

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  3.2

  3.8

  9.95

  11.93

  4.5

  4.8

  14.60

  14.45

  Leeds

  2.9

  3.6

  6.12

  7.64

  7.5

  8.2

  13.67

  13.66

  Leicestershire

  2.5

  3.0

  6.76

  8.15

  5.9

  6.4

  16.03

  15.64

  Lincolnshire

  2.6

  3.2

  4.83

  6.01

  6.5

  7.0

  12.19

  11.72

  Liverpool

  4.3

  5.3

  7.10

  9.02

  8.3

  9.0

  13.99

  13.93

  Manchester

  4.8

  5.6

  6.95

  8.11

  7.7

  8.5

  12.78

  12.57

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3.3

  4.0

  9.89

  11.99

  4.7

  5.0

  16.46

  16.31

  Morecambe Bay

  3.3

  4.0

  5.45

  6.53

  7.7

  8.4

  13.56

  13.25

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  3.5

  4.6

  6.55

  8.52

  7.7

  8.7

  12.57

  12.79

  Norfolk

  2.7

  3.4

  4.72

  5.74

  7.9

  8.9

  13.44

  13.39

  North and East Devon

  3 3

  3.7

  6.44

  7.11

  6.2

  6.7

  12.95

  12.96

  North and Mid Hampshire

  2.8

  3.4

  7.90

  9.45

  6.3

  7.0

  15.05

  15.29

  North Cheshire

  2.6

  3.0

  4.54

  5.31

  7.1

  7.7

  13.49

  13.40

  North Cumbria

  3.2

  3.9

  6.47

  7.76

  8.0

  9.1

  14.81

  15.18

  North Derbyshire

  2.2

  2.7

  5.21

  6.39

  6.4

  6.9

  12.35

  11.86

  North Essex

  2.5

  3.0

  6.03

  7.33

  6.0

  6.7

  13.49

  13.46

  North Nottinghamshire

  1.9

  2.4

  4.36

  5.47

  5.5

  6.1

  11.36

  11.14

  North Staffordshire

  2.6

  3.3

  5.13

  6.62

  7.9

  8.8

  15.07

  15.24

  North Yorkshire

  2.2

  2.6

  5.38

  6.52

  5.5

  6.0

  11.93

  11.84

  Northamptonshire

  2.4

  3.0

  6.49

  7.93

  6.0

  6.6

  14.36

  14.15

  Northumberland

  2.8

  3.3

  5.81

  6.71

  7.2

  8.0

  13.16

  13.16

  Nottingham

  1.2

  1.3

  3.70

  4.44

  5.9

  6.4

  13.41

  13.14

  North West Lancashire

  3.8

  4.8

  5.70

  7.24

  7.6

  8.6

  13.25

  13.36

  Oxfordshire

  2.3

  2.8

  7.15

  8.76

  5.9

  6.6

  14.18

  14.01

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  2.9

  3.7

  9.81

  12.49

  4.4

  4.7

  16.20

  16.31

  Rotherham

  3.2

  4.2

  6.00

  7.81

  7.8

  8.7

  14.69

  14.47

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  3.1

  3.8

  7.61

  8.96

  7.7

  8.7

  14.44

  14.61

  Salford and Trafford

  3.5

  4.3

  5.26

  6.51

  7.9

  8.6

  13.23

  12.95

  Sandwell

  2.5

  2.9

  6.60

  7.73

  5.9

  6.6

  14.55

  14.90

  Sefton

  4.5

  5.5

  6.93

  8.52

  7.6

  8.4

  13.81

  13.90

  252W 253W

  The net integrated cost per head of population and the average net ingredient cost per prescription item for tranquillisers and antidepressants dispensed in the community in England by health authority, 2000 and 2001

  Tranquillisers

  Antidepressants

  Net ingredient cost per head of population

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription item

  Net ingredient cost per head of population

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription item

  Health authority in which items were dispensed

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  Sheffield

  2.2

  2.6

  4.82

  5.84

  7.0

  7.4

  13.33

  12.73

  Shropshire

  2.6

  3.1

  6.86

  8.09

  6.3

  7.1

  15.90

  16.04

  Solihull

  2.1

  2.6

  5.92

  7.40

  6.1

  7.0

  16.10

  16.56

  Somerset

  2.3

  2.8

  4.94

  5.79

  5.8

  6.4

  13.19

  12.91

  South and West Devon

  3.4

  4.2

  6.18

  7.49

  6.4

  7.1

  13.34

  13.51

  South Cheshire

  2.9

  3.6

  6.14

  7.61

  7.2

  8.1

  14.98

  15.18

  South Essex

  2.3

  3.0

  6.11

  7.92

  5.5

  6.0

  15.11

  14.79

  South Humber

  2.6

  3.3

  4.47

  5.64

  5.3

  6.0

  12.27

  12.18

  South Lancashire

  2.6

  3.2

  5.57

  6.86

  6.0

  6.8

  13.26

  13.61

  South Staffordshire

  2.0

  2.4

  5.40

  6.55

  5.6

  6.1

  14.53

  14.20

  Southern Derbyshire

  1.9

  2.5

  5.15

  7.03

  6.0

  6.4

  14.72

  14.34

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3.7

  4.8

  5.59

  7.33

  7.3

  8.4

  12.48

  12.93

  Stockport

  3.3

  3.9

  4.83

  5.99

  8.2

  8.8

  12.88

  12.78

  Suffolk

  2.2

  2.9

  5.29

  6.77

  7.9

  8.7

  14.81

  14.70

  Sunderland

  2.7

  3.3

  6.08

  7.76

  7.6

  8.6

  14.94

  15.37

  Tees

  3.3

  4.1

  5.57

  6.85

  7.6

  8.6

  14.51

  14.64

  Wakefield

  3.1

  3.8

  6.05

  7.36

  6.5

  7.2

  11.85

  11.87

  Walsall

  3.2

  4.0

  6.73

  8.81

  5.5

  6.0

  13.93

  14.20

  Warwickshire

  2.5

  3.1

  6.33

  7.58

  5.4

  6.0

  14.53

  14.08

  West Kent

  2.5

  3.1

  6.25

  7.83

  5.6

  6.3

  14.66

  14.73

  West Pennine

  2.7

  3.2

  4.42

  5.33

  5.7

  6.2

  12.65

  12.47

  West Surrey

  2.4

  3.0

  6.44

  7.89

  5.8

  6.3

  16.50

  16.49

  West Sussex

  2.7

  3.2

  5.92

  7.06

  6.6

  7.3

  14.99

  15.21

  Wigan and Bolton

  2.8

  3.6

  4.82

  6.15

  6.7

  7.6

  13.04

  13.39

  Wiltshire

  2.3

  2.9

  5.91

  7.31

  6.3

  6.9

  13.81

  13.66

  Wirral

  4.0

  4.8

  5.51

  6.65

  7.9

  8.6

  12.25

  12.01

  Wolverhampton

  3.1

  3.6

  7.93

  9.07

  5.1

  5.7

  13.76

  13.66

  Worcestershire

  1.8

  2.5

  5.29

  7.04

  5.8

  6.5

  13.81

  13.97

  England

  2.8

  3.4

  6.20

  7.60

  6.2

  6.8

  14.89

  14.04

  Notes:

  1. Tranquillisers are defined as those drugs within the British National Formulary (BNF) sections 4.1, hypnotics and anxiolytics, and 4.2 drugs used in psychoses and related disorders. Antidepressant drugs are those within the BNF section 4.3

  2. The data are from the Prescripti n Cost Analysis system and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in England. The system covers prescriptions originating from general practices and also those written by nurses

  3. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed

  4. ONS mid-year population projections have been used

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the Department's estimate is of the average time scale for each of the three stages of chronic myeloid leukaemia; and if he will make a statement; [60006]

  (2) how many people have died from chronic myeloid leukaemia in the last two years; and if he will make a statement; [60007]

  (3) what criteria are used to assess which of the three stages of chronic myeloid leukaemia a patient is in; and if he will make a statement. [60005]

  Ms Blears
  Three phases of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) are usually definable; the chronic phase, an accelerated phase and the blast phase.

  The chronic phase is typically of three to five years duration from diagnosis. The majority of patients are in chronic phase at presentation. Clinically, in the chronic phase there are less than 10 per cent. immature blood cells (called blast cells) and promyelocytes (one of the series of cells that gives rise to granulocytes—a type of white blood cell) in the bone marrow. There is an elevated white cell count and often an elevated platelet count.
  254W
  The accelerated phase of CML marks the transition to the blast phase typically lasting two to 15 months, but generally leading to a rapidly fatal blast crisis within six months. As the accelerated phase is associated with numerous haematological cytogenic and clinical signs and symptoms, no single set of criteria for its onset is accepted.

  The blast phase is usually fatal within three to six months of onset. Clinically, the presence of 30 per cent. or more blast cells in the marrow or the presence of blast cells within the peripheral blood defines the blast phase.

  There were 514 deaths due to chronic myeloid leukaemia occurring in 2000 and 465 deaths occurring in 1999.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) children and (b) adults in England are registered with an NHS dentist. [59599]

  Mr. Lammy
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to national health service services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that
  255W
  even if a patient chooses not to register with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  60 per cent. of children and 43 per cent. of adults were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist in England at 31 March 2002.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59758]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no refurbishment projects currently in progress in the buildings occupied by the Department for its own use, although a small project to fit out headquarter premises for the commission for patient and public involvement may commence within the next six months.

  Environmental criteria are now contained as part of the specification in tendering contracts and include a requirement that timber products are from sustainable sources.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training medical students receive in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [60121]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curriculum in the light of recommendations from the General Medical Council's education committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent and knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the UK. This includes the range of problems that are presented to doctors and the range of solutions that have been developed for their recognition, investigation, prevention and treatment.

  The undergraduate medical course is the first step in the continuum of medical education, laying down the foundation for future professional life. The undergraduate course is not intended to provide specialist medical education within which training in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes would fall.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow GPs to complete form C1EXAM3 when diabetes sufferers apply for C1(+E) licences; and if he will make a statement. [61939]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently no plans to allow general practitioners to complete the C1EXAM3 form. My right hon. Friend's honorary medical advisory panel on driving and diabetes advises that a specialist assessment by a consultant diabetologist is required when an insulin
  256W
  treated diabetes sufferer applies for a C1 (+E) licence. The situation will be reviewed should a system of accredited specialism in diabetes be introduced for general practitioners.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the financial provision he will make to implement the national service framework for the treatment of diabetes. [61514]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Budget provides the highest sustained growth in national health service history, with annual average increases of 7.4 per cent. In real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year.

  Alcohol Treatment Services
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions his Department has had on the co-ordination of policies to reduce alcoholism in the United Kingdom. [60708]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan said that the Government would implement a national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse in England by 2004 and we are on course to achieve this. We will consult fully with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as we develop this strategy. It is also the case that the devolved Administrations have consulted the Department in developing their own strategies for tackling alcohol misuse, including the strategy for Scotland that was published in January this year.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which Government targets foundation hospitals will now have to adhere. [60517]

  Mr. Lammy
  Foundation trusts will be expected to deliver their contribution to Government targets and uphold national standards and guarantees to patients.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra flexibility foundation hospitals will have in pay over other NHS trusts. [60516]

  Mr. Hutton
  Foundation trusts will be able to use the flexibilities of the new pay system we are currently negotiating to modernise the work force including developing additional rewards for those staff who are contribu ing most. The full details of the flexibilities will be available once the pay modernisation negotiations are complete and the legislation is finalised.

  Respiratory Syncitial Virus
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were re-admitted to hospital more than once during the year suffering from the respiratory syncitial virus in the last three years in the South East region, broken down by age; how many of these were re-admitted to the intensive care unit; and if he will make a statement. [60717]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  257W
  All information held on hospital admissions of children diagnosed with respiratory syncitial virus in the south east was contained in the answer given to the hon. Member by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), on 10 May 2002, Official Report, column 401W.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he(a) collates and (b) will publish details of waiting times for NHS orthodontic treatment. [61450]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on waiting times for orthodontic treatment carried out in primary care, which accounts for the majority of orthodontic services, is not held centrally. However, information is available for patients who have been referred to hospital for treatment. Latest data show that at quarter ending 31 March 2002 there were 2,716 out-patients who had been waiting over 13 weeks for a first out-patient appointment with an orthodontic consultant and there were 130 in-patients waiting for orthodontic treatment.

  Table 1: Waiting time for first out-patient appointment, Orthodontics consultant specialty, England

  Of those GP written referrals seen, the number who waited (weeks)

  Of those GP written referrals seen, the percentage who waited (weeks)

  GP written referrals still waiting, who have been waiting (weeks)

  Quarter ended

  Number of GP written referral requests seen

  0 to less 4

  4 to less 13

  13 to less 26

  26 plus

  less than 4 (per cent.)

  less than 13 (per cent.)

  less than 26 (per cent.)

  13 to less than 26

  26 plus

  March 1996

  24,965

  4,805

  9,598

  6,173

  4,389

  19

  58

  82

  3,978

  3,524

  March 1997

  20,690

  3,681

  8,936

  4,974

  3,099

  18

  61

  85

  4,442

  3,380

  March 1998

  19,236

  2,784

  7,838

  5,911

  2,703

  14

  55

  86

  5,170

  5,258

  March 1999

  19,438

  2,418

  7,464

  5,595

  3,961

  12

  51

  80

  6 524

  5,074

  March 2000

  23,175

  3,036

  7,971

  7,009

  5,159

  13

  47

  78

  5,225

  4,614

  March 2001

  21,237

  2,955

  9,339

  5,184

  3,759

  14

  58

  82

  3,996

  2,982

  March 2002

  21,176

  3,484

  8,980

  5,597

  3,115

  16

  59

  85

  2,713

  3

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Table 2: Patients waiting for elective admission, Orthodontics consultant speciality, England (ordinary and day case admissions combined)

  Total patients waiting for admission by month waiting

  Quarter ended

  Waiting

  Less than 3

  3–5

  6–8

  9–11

  12–14

  15–17

  18 plus

  March 1996

  257

  136

  63

  34

  24

  0

  0

  0

  March 1997

  253

  119

  91

  28

  15

  0

  0

  0

  March 1998

  304

  149

  77

  50

  25

  3

  0

  0

  March 1999

  184

  74

  61

  29

  16

  3

  1

  0

  March 2000

  84

  31

  27

  17

  6

  3

  0

  0

  March 2001

  170

  77

  50

  26

  14

  3

  0

  0

  March 2002

  130

  50

  49

  18

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives on which orthodontic treatments should be made available on the NHS. [60720]

  Mr. Lammy
  Details of all orthodontic treatment that can be made available through general dental services are included in the statement of dental remuneration (SDR), which is issued to all dental practitioners and health authorities annually, in April. The Department does not give specific advice on what treatment a dentist or orthodontist should provide for patients, as this is a matter for the individuals' clinical judgment. However, the range of treatments available in the SDR was introduced in consultatio with the profession and is considered
  258W
  The intention to reform orthodontic treatment was signalled in the NHS dental strategy "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan" published in September 2000. The Department continues to work with the profession to see how reform might be achieved.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for orthodontic treatment on 1 May in each year since 1996. [60722]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on waiting times for orthodontic treatment carried out in primary care, which accounts for the majority of orthodontic services, is not held centrally. However, information is available for patients who have been referred to hospital for treatment. The tables show orthodontic treatment waiting times for in-patients and out-patients in hospitals.

  The intention to reform orthodontic treatment was signalled in the NHS dental strategy "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan" published in September 2000. The Department continues to work with the profession to see how reform might be achieved.

  adequate to ensure the best treatment outcome for all patients.

  Over recent months officials have had helpful discussions with the profession on possible changes to the current system and the Department will continue to work with the profession on this.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people per 1,000 of the population were provided with orthodontic treatment in each year since 1996, broken down by health authority. [60721]

  Mr. Lammy
  The available information is shown in the table and quantifies the number of claims made for the
  259W
  provision of orthodontic appliances in the general dental service (GDS) per 1,000 population by health authority (HA) in England for each year from 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  General dental service: number of claims for orthodontic appliances per 1,000 population1, 1996–97 to 2001–02

  England

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Avon

  4.9

  5.1

  5.6

  6.5

  6.5

  8.3

  Barking and Havering

  5.6

  7.6

  6.2

  7.4

  7.6

  7.2

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  8.0

  9.2

  8.2

  8.2

  9.5

  9.6

  Barnsley

  2.2

  1.9

  2.1

  2.0

  2.1

  1.4

  Bedfordshire

  5.0

  5.7

  5.7

  3.6

  1.9

  1.7

  Berkshire

  7.3

  8.1

  7.4

  5.6

  5.8

  6.7

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  6.0

  6.1

  6.8

  7.2

  7.7

  7.5

  Birmingham

  4.4

  4.6

  4.6

  4.7

  5.0

  4.8

  Bradford

  2.0

  1.9

  1.9

  2.1

  1.8

  1.9

  Brent and Harrow

  9.3

  4.3

  3.1

  3.1

  3.3

  3.8

  Buckinghamshire

  3.8

  4.4

  5.5

  4.8

  4.2

  4.3

  Bury and Rochdale

  5.5

  5.8

  6.5

  5.3

  5.9

  6.0

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  3.3

  3.5

  3.8

  3.6

  4.0

  4.3

  Cambridge and Huntingdon2

  6.8

  5.7

  4.9

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridge2

  —

  —

  —

  4.4

  4.1

  5.4

  Camden and Islington

  1.1

  1.5

  1.9

  1.9

  2.4

  2.6

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2.6

  2.9

  3.0

  3.5

  3.5

  3.3

  County Durham

  2.5

  2.2

  2.3

  2.5

  2.3

  2.6

  Coventry

  2.5

  2.7

  2.8

  3.0

  3.1

  3.3

  Croydon

  6.5

  6.9

  6.9

  6.6

  6.7

  6.4

  Doncaster

  4.3

  4.4

  5.0

  5.2

  5.7

  6.1

  Dorset

  4.3

  3.9

  3.9

  3.9

  4.0

  3.6

  Dudley

  2.6

  3.1

  3.4

  3.7

  3.7

  3.8

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1.8

  2.1

  2.6

  3.2

  3.8

  4.0

  East Kent

  4.2

  3.0

  3.4

  3.7

  3.6

  4.0

  East Lancashire

  4.3

  3.6

  3.7

  3.6

  3.3

  3.3

  East London and The City

  2.8

  3.0

  3.1

  3.5

  4.8

  4.2

  East Norfolk2

  6.0

  5.8

  5.7

  —

  —

  —

  East Riding

  2.4

  2.5

  2.7

  3.1

  3.1

  3.0

  East Surrey

  4.2

  4.6

  5.2

  4.8

  5.5

  6.1

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  3.8

  4.7

  4.6

  4.5

  4.0

  4.0

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1.8

  1.6

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  1.7

  Gloucestershire

  4.5

  4.8

  5.8

  6.5

  6.4

  5.9

  Herefordshire

  2.9

  2.8

  2.8

  3.3

  4.5

  4.7

  Hertfordshire

  6.5

  6.7

  6.6

  6.4

  7.9

  8.9

  Hillingdon

  8.0

  7.0

  8.4

  8.3

  7.5

  6.2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  3.9

  3.4

  3.5

  3.1

  2.5

  1.8

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  0.7

  2.9

  4.6

  4.7

  5.6

  6.8

  Kingston and Richmond

  4.7

  6.3

  4.6

  5.8

  7.9

  7.2

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1.0

  2.1

  2.9

  4.2

  3.8

  3.1

  Leeds

  4.8

  5.1

  5.9

  5.8

  6.0

  6.6

  Leicestershire

  3.3

  3.8

  3.7

  3.7

  3.7

  4.8

  Lincolnshire

  2.0

  2.4

  2.7

  2.3

  2.5

  2.6

  Liverpool

  7.0

  7.0

  7.2

  6.6

  6.5

  5.5

  Manchester

  3.1

  2.9

  3.1

  2.6

  2.8

  2.7

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  4.5

  4.1

  2.8

  2.7

  3.3

  4.5

  Morecambe Bay

  3.2

  3.5

  3.6

  3.7

  3.4

  3.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  3.5

  4.4

  3.8

  4.5

  3.8

  4.2

  Norfolk2

  —

  —

  —

  4.7

  4.7

  4.7

  North and East Devon

  4.5

  4.6

  5.0

  4.6

  5.1

  6.4

  North and Mid Hampshire

  2.2

  2.2

  2.6

  2.5

  3.1

  3.6

  North Cheshire

  6.3

  5.7

  6.7

  7.3

  7.1

  7.1

  North Cumbria

  3.0

  2.5

  2.6

  2.3

  2.6

  2.3

  North Derbyshire

  4.5

  4.8

  4.6

  4.3

  4.5

  4.3

  North Essex

  6.6

  5.9

  6.2

  5.8

  5.2

  5.3

  North Nottinghamshire

  5.8

  5.8

  6.6

  5.9

  6.0

  5.9

  North Staffordshire

  3.4

  3.3

  3.2

  2.9

  3.1

  2.8

  North West Anglia2

  3.8

  4.0

  4.8

  —

  —

  —

  North West Lancashire

  5.7

  7.4

  8.9

  9.6

  8.9

  8.8

  North Yorkshire

  4.4

  4.3

  4.6

  4.5

  4.2

  4.4

  Northamptonshire

  3.6

  3.8

  3.8

  4.4

  4.3

  4.8

  Northumberland

  2.3

  2.1

  2.0

  1.8

  1.6

  1.6

  Nottingham

  6.3

  6.9

  6.4

  6.8

  5.7

  7.4

  Oxfordshire

  3.8

  4.0

  4.1

  4.9

  4.9

  5.6

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  7.9

  6.3

  7.6

  7.4

  7.8

  8.1

  Rotherham

  3.5

  3.6

  3.6

  3.2

  2.8

  2.7

  Salford and Trafford

  5.3

  5.4

  7.0

  8.4

  8.0

  8.4

  Sandwell

  0.7

  1.1

  2.2

  2.3

  2.8

  4.2

  Sefton

  2.5

  2.2

  2.4

  1.5

  1.4

  1.0

  Sheffield

  5.8

  5.0

  4.6

  4.4

  4.8

  5.2

  Shropshire

  3.1

  3.1

  2.9

  3.1

  5.6

  4.3

  260W
  The figures for HAs will be af ected by some patients receiving treatment in a different HA area from one in which they reside.
  261W

  General dental service: number of claims for orthodontic appliances per 1,000 population1, 1996–97 to 2001–02

  England

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Solihull

  4.0

  4.5

  4.5

  4.0

  5.7

  7.1

  Somerset

  3.5

  3.2

  3.4

  3.6

  4.4

  4.6

  South and West Devon

  4.8

  4.6

  4.9

  4.2

  4.3

  4.7

  South Cheshire

  9.0

  9.8

  11.0

  11.1

  11.0

  10.6

  South Derbyshire

  2.7

  3.0

  2.9

  3.0

  3.4

  3.7

  South Essex

  4.7

  3.9

  2.9

  2.4

  3.4

  3.4

  South Humber

  2.5

  2.7

  2.8

  2.3

  2.5

  2.3

  South Lancashire

  3.3

  3.9

  3.5

  5.1

  6.2

  6.1

  South Staffordshire

  3.0

  2.8

  2.8

  2.7

  2.6

  2.7

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  4.4

  4.0

  4.0

  4.5

  4.2

  4.6

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2.6

  3.2

  3.0

  2.2

  2.4

  1.7

  Stockport

  6.5

  6.5

  6.3

  5.2

  5.7

  5.4

  Suffolk

  4.9

  5.0

  5.4

  4.9

  5.4

  5.7

  Sunderland

  2.8

  3.0

  3.3

  3.2

  2.9

  3.4

  Tees

  3.1

  3.0

  3.6

  3.8

  3.9

  4.4

  Wakefield

  3.0

  2.3

  1.9

  2.0

  3.0

  4.9

  Walsall

  2.2

  2.2

  2.0

  2.2

  2.7

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  2.1

  2.1

  2.4

  2.9

  3.2

  3 4

  West Kent

  3.9

  4.8

  5.9

  5.8

  8.5

  8.9

  West Pennine

  6.3

  7.0

  5.7

  6.2

  7.4

  4.5

  West Surrey

  7.9

  8.4

  8.8

  8.3

  8.8

  8.6

  West Sussex

  6.4

  7.3

  7.9

  7.9

  7.9

  8.0

  Wigan and Bolton

  5.9

  6.5

  6.3

  5.5

  5.9

  5.7

  Wiltshire

  4.3

  4.8

  4.3

  4.8

  5.4

  4.5

  Wirral

  5.2

  6.0

  6.7

  7.1

  9.0

  9.7

  Wolverhampton

  1.8

  2.2

  2.7

  2.8

  3.2

  3.7

  Worcestershire

  6.6

  5.8

  6.3

  5.8

  5.7

  7.4

  England

  4.4

  4.6

  4.7

  4.7

  4.9

  5.1

  1 ONS 1996–2000 mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census are used to calculate the number of orthodontic claims per 1,000 population.

  2 In April 1999 Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia were replaced by Cambridge and North Norfolk health authorities.

  Operation Waiting Time (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for operations in Leicester. [60573]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows the waiting time for elective admission for patients in the area covered by the former Leicestershire health authority as at 31 March 2002.

  Patients waiting for elective admission

  Number

  Total patients waiting

  15,354

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Less than 3

  9,111

  3–5

  3,648

  6–8

  1,710

  9–11

  876

  12–14

  9

  15–17

  0

  18–plus

  0

  Median length of wait (months)

  2.53

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much assistance the UK Government provided for the Rwandan Government on a bilateral basis in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [61866]
  262W
  Clare Short
  The UK Government provided the following bilateral assistance to the Government of Rwanda during 2000–01 and 2001–02:

  2000–01—£32.8 million (of which £25.4 million was budgetary aid, and the remainder in project aid, technical co-operation and other grants);

  2001–02—£26.9 million1 (of which £18 million was budgetary aid).
  1This figure is provisional. Final disbursement figures will be available in November 2002 when Statistics on International Development is published.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Government of Rwanda regarding the presence of Rwandan soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [61868]

  Clare Short
  We are in regular contact with the Government of Rwanda on all aspects of its policies in the Great Lakes region, including the presence of its soldiers in the DRC. The international community has recognised, in numerous Security Council resolutions and in the Lusaka Peace Agreements, that Rwanda has legitimate security concerns that have led to its military presence in the DRC. We are working actively as part of the international community to work for full implementation of the Lusaka Peace agreement, which will ensure that legitimate security concerns are addressed so that Rwanda can safely withdraw its forces from the DRC at the earliest possible date.

  Third World
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she is having to regulate the activities of international organisations with respect to the Third World; and if she will make a statement. [61934]

  Clare Short
  There are a large number of international organisations whose activities influence developing countries, these include the World Trade Organisation (WTO), World bank and regional development banks and the UN Agencies. The WTO exists as an organisation whose members can agree the trade rules that they consider to be mutually beneficial, with decisions made through consensus; the formal regulatory environment for the World bank and the regional development banks is established through their Articles of Agreement; UN agencies are regulated through their mandates. The executive boards of the multilateral development banks and the UN agencies provide day to day policy direction, oversight and control. In the Government's 2000 White Paper "Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" we are committed to build a stronger, more open and accountable international system, including to increase the capacity of poor countries to negotiate in the WTO, and I am continuing to have discussions with other stakeholders on how best to take this work forward.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to encourage third world countries to protect(a) poorer farmers and (b) the environment in their own countries. [61932]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working with developing countries on poverty reduction strategies that will enable the poorest to lift themselves out of poverty. Three-quarters of the world's poorest people live in rural areas and depend significantly on agriculture. In many countries, therefore, this means attention to rural development and agriculture. Countries where we are already engaged in agricultural and rural reform processes include: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ghana, India, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. My Department has recently issued a consultation paper, "Better Livelihoods for Poor People: the Role of Agriculture". This focuses on the livelihoods of small and medium producers and proposes action within developing countries, particularly with regard to the policy and institutional environment that will create opportunities for the poor; at international level with regard to trade, standard setting and international agricultural research; and domestically with regard to he distortions caused by EU agricultural subsidies and trade barriers.

  We are also encouraging countries to mainstream environment within their poverty reduction strategies, recognising that more effective environmental management can contribute to sustained poverty reduction. Action is proceeding in four main areas: improving governance; enhancing the assets of the poor; improving the quality of growth; and reforming international and developed country policies. This broad agenda shows that the issue of environmental protection cannot be looked at in isolation, and that many decisions affecting the environment are not taken by those directly responsible for environmental issues.
  264W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she is having with EU Ministers about improving its third world aid budget and the delivery of aid to those countries; and if she will make a statement. [61936]

  Clare Short
  I am in regular contact with EU Development Ministers to discuss how to improve the effectiveness of EC development assistance. Most recently, we met during the EU Development Council on 30 May to discuss reform of EC development assistance as well as the EU position for the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  My Department is focusing its efforts on two broad objectives: improving the overall effectiveness of EC development assistance and increasing its poverty focus. We welcome the positive steps that have been taken to reform EC development assistance and are pressing the EC to pursue its reform efforts vigorously in order to implement the November 2000 EC Development Policy, which for the first time, makes poverty reduction the central objective of EC development programmes. We are working for agreement that a much greater share of EC aid should be allocated to low income countries where it will have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. In 2000, only 38 per cent. of EC aid was spent in low income countries compared to 70 per cent. in 1990.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met Government officials from Ethiopia to discuss the provision of development aid to that country; and if she will make a statement about the provision of development aid to Ethiopia. [61931]

  Clare Short
  I last met Prime Minister Meles in Gabarone in October 2001. A senior DFID delegation subsequently held development talks with the Ethiopian Government in Addis Ababa in February 2002. Following these talks we have continued the process of taking forward our development partnership with the Ethiopian Government, which will be informed by the Ethiopian Government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, which we understand will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) emergency and (b) development aid the UK Government have provided to Ethiopia in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [61930]

  Clare Short
  Over the last 10 years my Department has provided the following bilateral development assistance to Ethiopia:

  Bilateral aid to Ethiopia

  £000

  DFID programme

  of which: Humanitarian assistance

  1991–92

  22,728

  18,467

  1992–93

  17,391

  12,863

  1993–94

  20,177

  10,668

  1994–95

  23,411

  12,609

  1995–96

  25,226

  4,645

  1996–97

  7,931

  233

  265W

  Bilateral aid to Ethiopia

  £000

  DFID programme

  of which: Humanitarian assistance

  1997–98

  7,357

  3,122

  1998–99

  8,733

  3,489

  1999–2000

  6,969

  3,076

  2000–01

  16,194

  13,380

  Source:

  Statistics on International Development 1991–92 to 2000–01

  Sudan
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the situation in southern Sudan. [62008]

  Clare Short
  In spite of renewed efforts to establish a lasting peace, fighting continues in many parts of southern Sudan. The humanitarian consequences for those affected by the conflict are devastating. The UK is supporting the latest round of IGAD peace talks in Nairobi this week through the DFID/FCO Sudan Unit and the UK Special Representative and with financial support to the IGAD Sudan secretariat. In addition to supporting the political process, we will continue to support the agencies and organisations in the field best placed to meet the humanitarian needs.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) protocols and (b) treaties are in place to ensure access to southern Sudan by aid agencies for humanitarian assistance; and if she will make a statement. [62009]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian access is based on a series of agreements dating from the 1988 Accords between the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) coalition partners and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA). Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), agreed between the United Nations (UN), the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the SPLA followed this in 1989. OLS was based on unsigned informal agreements between UN officials and the GoS. In 1992, the UN Department for Humanitarian Affairs negotiated a new agreement with GoS and SPLA on access routes for humanitarian assistance. In 1993 the OLS Ground Rules were implemented. The Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD) achieved agreement in May 1994 on the principles for a negotiated end to the conflict (the Declaration of Principles—DoP). In addition to the DoP, an agreement on humanitarian access was also signed and ratified. The latter agreement remains the only signed access agreement between all the parties.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what flight bans are in place in the Sudan, in(a) Bahr el-Ghazal, (b) Eastern Equatoria and (c) Western Upper Nile; and what the impact is on access to humanitarian assistance. [62010]

  Clare Short
  Flight bans are in place in all three areas.

  In (a) Bahr el-Ghazal, the total of denied locations is 38 out of 63 sought (25 granted). 17 locations are denied as the Government of Sudan (GoS) says they are insecure and therefore not safe, plus a further 21 locations as GoS cannot be sure where they are as WFP/UN will not give them the required coordinates.
  266W
  In (b) Eastern Equatoria, the total denied is five out of 15 sought (10 granted). Two locations are denied as GoS says they are not secure, plus three more denied as GoS have not been given coordinates.

  In (c) Western Upper Nile (WUN), 13 locations are denied as GoS says they are not secure. 19 others are denied becau e no coordinates were provided and GoS says they cannot therefore verify the locations and give clearance. GoS has granted a further 45 clearances for WUN this week after representations were made by the United Nations: of these, 21 are new locations not requested by the UN.

  Flight bans limit the access to humanitarian assistance and have a negative impact on the populations affected. We continue to work to improve the situation.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62206]

  Clare Short
  We have no record of any meetings with these organisations over the period in question.

  Afghanistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding(a) her Department and (b) other G8 countries have (i) pledged for and (ii) spent on the return of refugee programmes in Afghanistan. [61754]

  Clare Short
  Since September 2001, my Department has contributed over £3 million to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) for their programme of assistance to Afghan refugees, and over £3.5 million to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and returnees to Afghanistan. We are also supporting a number of other humanitarian programmes which will help to create an environment for the sustainable return of both refugees and IDPs, including the United Nations-led programme of mine clearance and mine awareness in Afghanistan. We are currently considering what further support to provide for refugees, IDPs and returnees.

  At the Tokyo conference in January, international donors pledged funds for the overall reconstruction of Afghanistan, including humanitarian programmes. Pledges were not broken down by sector. Therefore we are not aware of specific amounts pledged by G8 nations for refugee return.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has made on the reduction of World Food Programme projects in Afghanistan. [61758]

  Clare Short
  My Department is liaising with the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) as it further targets and amends its activities in line with the developing situation on the ground and the availability
  267W
  of resources. Since September 2001, we have contributed £9 million towards WFP's programmes in Afghanistan, and are currently considering what further support to provide.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has promised Sri Lanka following her meeting with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister on 28 May. [61864]

  Clare Short
  I agreed to provide additional funds for quick impact, fast disbursing programmes that will help nurture and build confidence in the peace process. We now await proposals from the Sri Lanka Government. In addition, I offered support from my Department in applying lessons and experience from other countries emerging from conflict.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [60997]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 17 June 2002,Official Report (reference to follow when known).

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60902]

  Clare Short
  My Department did not manage any campaigns of this kind during the period in question.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Council what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion, in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60729]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Modernisation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that the oral questions to be tabled on a particular day should appear on the front page of the Order Paper. [61623]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I will consider this suggestion in the light of the Procedure Committee's report on parliamentary questions.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [60885]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 21 March 2002,Official Report, column 514W.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60892]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Data are collected twice a year on 1 April and 1 October. Data for 1 April 2002 are currently being collected.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 13 June 2002.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60912]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No expenditure has been incurred by my Department on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02. There is no planned expenditure for 2002–03.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61064]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  9,586,40

  1998–99

  9,388,34

  1999–2000

  14,462,87

  2000–01

  11,305,69

  2001–02

  16,362,78

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61661]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department does not host parties for staff.

  However, it has been the custom for the Leader of the House to host a Christmas reception to thank the staff who work in parliamentary sections in other Departments who provide advice for the business statement. Ministers, MPs and staff of the House and of my Department are also invited.

  The total cost was £1,843.87 and approximately 200 people attended.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Judicial Delays
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action has been taken relating to management information about committal proceedings which failed because the prosecution was not ready to proceed. [60213]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Since April 2002, the Crown Prosecution Service has recorded details of discharged committals in its quarterly Adverse Outcomes report. This will show the reason for the outcome against a list of 22 categories, but will not capture, as a distinct category, those discharged committals in which the prosecution was not ready to proceed.

  The Compass Case Management system will be introduced in December 2003. This will provide a count of the number of discharged committals and an analysis of the reasons for the outcome. This will make available for the first time the number that occur because the prosecution is not ready to proceed.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General which CPS areas have been identified as sources of good practice; and what the nature is of their expertise. [60205]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate reports on individual CPS areas and highlights good practice which might usefully be adopted by other areas. Individual area inspectorate reports are circulated to all Chief Crown Prosecutors.

  In addition, representatives of CPS HQ, areas, and the inspectorate meet to draw together identified good practice, which is then posted on the CPS intranet and also appears in the CPS weekly business publication.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by her Department have a regional organisation; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002; [58939]

  (2) what regional organisation her Department has; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58938]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department does not have its own regional organisation, but works with and through the Government offices for the regions. Since summer 1999, one member of staff with the responsibility for my Department's agenda, has been based in each of the nine regional Government offices.

  In 1997, most regions had a gathering of cultural agencies such as arts, sport and heritage, but there was no forum which brought together wider cultural interests such as local government, regional development agencies and key cultural players. Since December 1999, each of
  270W
  the eight regions outside London has had a regional cultural consortium, sponsored by my Department, which brings together representatives of all cultural sectors.

  The following non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department have a regional organisation whose regional boundaries match those of the Government office regions: Sport England. English Heritage, Arts Council of England, New Opportunities Fund, The Community Fund and Awards for All—a joint lottery distributor programme. All have offices in each of the nine regions. In addition, the Film C uncil is in the process of bringing together regional screen organisations throughout England and they too will have an office in each region.

  The National Heritage Memorial Fund is in the process of opening up regional offices which should be operational by July. They will have an office in each region except that the south-east and London regions will both be based in the London office.

  The Independent Television Commission has four regional offices. The regions covered by these offices are as follows: north of England (this covers the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire Government office regions); midlands and east of England (this covers the west midlands; east midlands and east of England Government office regions as well as parts of Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire); south and south-west England and the Channel Islands (this covers the London, south-east and south-west Government office regions; excluding parts of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Dorset and Somerset); Wales and the west of England (which includes parts of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset).

  The English Tourism Council does not have a regional organisation of its own. However, much of its work is carried out by the 10 regional tourist boards, which are independent bodies. These are arranged as follows: Cumbria; east of England (this covers the east of England Government office region); heart of England (this covers the west midlands and east midlands Government office regions); London; Northumbria (this covers the north-east Government office region); north-west (this covers the north-west Government office regions except Cumbria); south-east of England (the counties of East and West Sussex, Kent and Surrey, and the unitary authorities of Brighton and Hove, and Medway); southern (the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, the unitary authorities of Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead, Wokingham, Portsmouth, Southampton, Isle of Wight, Milton Keynes, and East Dorset district); south-west (this covers the south-west Government office region, excluding the East Dorset district); Yorkshire (this covers the Yorkshire Government office region).

  I am arranging for a list of the counties and unitary authorities in each region in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002 to be placed in the House Library.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart
  271W
  from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if she will specify for each target (a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60466]

  Dr. Howells
  In addition to the targets set out in the public service agreements (PSA), a number of targets, set and monitored by the Department, are in the Service Delivery Agreement underpinning the PSA. The Service Delivery Agreement may be obtained from the Library of the House and is also available on the DCMS website.

  Performance targets for the Royal Parks Agency and the Department's non-departmental public bodies are set out in three-year funding agreements. These targets are agreed between the Department and its sponsored bodies and jointly monitored. I am arranging to have the funding agreements placed in the Library of the House.

  Key targets for Lottery distributors are also agreed with the Department and jointly monitored. The targets appear in the distributors' Annual Reports and Accounts, which are available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year ince they were introduced; [60888]

  (2) what the (a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61631]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes information on performance against its targets, including on value for money and on the resources it has used in its departmental report.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61031]

  Dr. Howells
  Information for 2002–03 is not available as the total for staff costs is dependent upon the outcome of pay negotiations. The figures for 2001–02 are available in the Department's 2002 Annual Report, Cm 5423, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61068]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has spent the following on training and development.272W

  Financial year

  Sum (£)

  2001–02

  388,397

  2000–01

  309,832

  1999–00

  348,692

  1998–99

  311,514

  Figures are provided on an accruals basis.

  Figures for the years before 1998 are not held centrally. Retrieving the information prior to that date would incur disproportionate cost.

  School Sport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Sports Lottery funds has been allocated to capital sporting projects in state primary schools in each year; and if she will make a statement. [61373]

  Dr. Howells
  Sport England's data collection for lottery awards does not distinguish between primary and secondary schools. The total amounts awarded to state primary and secondary schools for capital projects are set out in the table.

  £

  Financial year

  Total

  1995–96

  13,316,057

  1996–97

  12,117,208

  1997–98

  22,270,791

  1998–99

  24,197,506

  1999–2000

  27,983,606

  2000–01

  20,767,260

  2001–02

  25,460,744

  2002–03

  7,476,435

  Total

  153,589,607

  In addition, Space for Sport and Arts is providing £130 million towards new or modernised sport and arts facilities in about 300 primary schools in deprived areas. Of this, £55 million is lottery money of which Sport England is contributing £25 million. The majority of building work will be under way during the financial year 2002–03.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the funding streams from the overnment and the National Lottery available to secondary schools who wish to improve their sports facilities. [61292]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government fund the provision of sports facilities in schools predominantly through Sport England and other non-departmental public bodies. The Community Capital Fund, one element of the Sport England lottery fund, has allocated £200 million to primary and secondary schools for over 350 schemes since 1995 to assist with projects such as facility development. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) recently allocated £750 million (£581 million in England) to LEAs across the country. Authorities are working with NOF and local organisations on the distribution of those funds to projects in primary and secondary schools designed to bring about a step-change in the provision of sporting facilities for young people and for the community.
  273W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) school and (b) other playing fields have been sold since June 2001 (i) in England and (ii) broken down by constituency. [62983]

  Mr. Caborn
  Data on the number of playing fields sold are not collected. Sport England do, however, monitor the number of planning applications concerning playing fields in their role as statutory consultee. The Government will shortly be publishing combined figures for(a) applications from schools submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the disposal or change of use of school playing fields (which are already published monthly), and (b) figures from Sport England giving details of planning applications affecting playing fields which have been referred to them as statutory consultee (which are already published quarterly), along with (c) relevant data from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many school sports co-ordinators are in place. [62985]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are well on their way to meeting their target of 1,000 school sport co-ordinators by 2004, with 577 currently in place, benefiting 1.26 million pupils. Another 165 co-ordinators have been designated, making a total of 742 in post by September, and increasing the total number of pupils benefiting to 1.8 million.

  School Sports Co-ordinators Scheme
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the School Sports Co-ordinators Scheme. [61289]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are well on their way to meeting their target of 1,000 School Sport Co-ordinators by 2004, with 577 currently in place, benefiting 1.26 million pupils. Another 165 Co-ordinators have been designated, making a total of 742 in post by September, and increasing the total number of pupils benefiting to 1.8 million.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff were employed by her Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60927]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60906]

  Dr. Howells
  No press and advertising campaigns were undertaken in 2001–02 and none are planned for 2002–03.

  Religious Broadcasters
  Mr. Swayn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement regarding her policy with regard to allowing religious broadcasters to 274W
  apply for (a) national analogue radio licences, (b) national digital sound programme licences, (c) analogue radio additional service licences, (d) local radio multiplex licences, (e) national radio multiplex licences, (f) all audiologue television licences, (g) national television multiplex licences and (h) local television multiplex licences. [61508]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's aim is to ensure that the limited spectrum available is distributed so as to satisfy as many viewers/listeners as possible, and to avoid giving one religion an unfair advantage over another so that everyone's beliefs are equally respected. The Government's position is set out in the document "The draft Communications Bill—The Policy" which states that, where there is sufficient spectrum availability, restrictions on religious bodies holding licences will be removed (paragraph 9.3.3).

  This means that religious bodies can hold none of the licences referred to in the question. However, the Radio Authority, which licences all independent radio services in the UK, is currently given discretion under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to award local analogue, satellite and cable licences to religious bodies, subject to compliance with the authority's codes on News, Current Affairs and Programming; Advertising and Sponsorship; and its Ownership Guidelines, and the ITC can also award cable and satellite TV licences to religious organisations. The draft Bill increases the number of types of licences which religious bodies can hold by giving Ofcom discretion to award a digital local sound programme service and a digital additional service licence to religious bodies. Further clauses are now being drafted which will give Ofcom discretion to award religious bodies digital additional service licences for TV and radio, TV licences for digital programme services and restricted service licences.

  Public Library Standard 18
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the annual cost to each London borough if they are to comply with public library standard 18. [61158]

  Dr. Howells
  We are monitoring the application of the public library standards through the Annual Library Planning process. Analysis of the 2001 plans shows that nearly all authorities are using the introduction of the standards to plan for improvements in the quality of their library services but that, in many cases, authorities recognise that this will require them to direct more of their budgets into their library services than hitherto. Most authorities have shown that they will need to build this into their budgets for the financial years up to 2003–04. I shall continue to monitor the ability of authorities to increase their library service budgets through the Annual Library Plan process as, in many cases, authorities have clearly stated that their ability to meet the standards by 2003–04 is dependent on increases in the library budget.

  PLS 18, in common with the other public library standards, helps to define authorities' existing statutory obligations under the Public Library and Museums Act 1964 to provide library services that are comprehensive and efficient.
  275W
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional resources she has provided to local authorities with large book stocks to enable them to replenish their stocks in accordance with public library standard 18. [61157]

  Dr. Howells
  Funding for public libraries is provided through the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) block administered by the Office of the eputy Prime Minister. Subvention to the EPCS was increased by 4.3 per cent. for 2002–03, a real terms increase of 1.7 per cent.

  PLS 18, in common with the other public library standards, helps to define authorities' existing statutory obligations under the Public Library and Museums Act 1964 to provide library services that are comprehensive and efficient.

  We are monitoring the application of the public library standards through the Annual Library Planning process. Analysis of the 2001 plans shows that nearly all authorities are using the introduction of the standards to plan for improvements in the quality of their library services but that, in many cases, authorities recognise that this will require them to direct more of their budgets into their library services than hitherto. It is for library authorities to ensure that they make the right allocation of resources to ensure the provision of a comprehensive and efficient service within the meaning of the Act.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of public library standard 18 on levels of book stocks. [61159]

  Dr. Howells
  The public library standards have been introduced over a three year period, 2001–04, and, although we are monitoring the application of the standards each year through the Annual Library Planning process, it will not be possible to obtain an accurate picture of the impact of PLS 18 on stock levels until the end of 2003–04.

  The public library standards help to define authorities' existing statutory obligations under the Public Library and Museums Act 1964 to provide library services that are comprehensive and efficient.

  Stationery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by her Department on stationery in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000, (f) 2000–01 and (g) 2001–02; what suppliers were used in each of those years, and how much was spent per supplier; what tender processes were undertaken, and what the frequency was of the processes; and if she will make a statement. [61380]

  Dr. Howells
  Before 1998–99 no record was kept of the cost of specific office supplies such as stationery. The cost of stationery, in 1998–99 was £130,000, in 1999–2000 £136,000, in 2000–01 it was £128,000 and in 2001–02 £101,000. Stationery is purchased from a single supplier to achieve best value from volume purchasing. Contracts for the supply of goods and services are all subject to competitive tender and those for the supply of goods are normally for a period of three years, the last commencing in April 2001.

  Inter-departmental Group on Sport
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place copies of the minutes of the Inter-Departmental Group on Sport in the Library. [61291]

  Dr. Howells
  The inter-ministerial group brings together Departments and other related bodies with an interest in sport. The group was set up so those attending could raise issues and float ideas in the knowledge that their contributions would remain confidential. To publish the minutes would inhibit the discussions and reduce the effectiveness of the group. I do not, therefore, intend to place the minutes of the group in the Library.

  Fair Trade
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what work her Department will be undertaking to help promote the launch of the new universal fair trade mark later this year. [61756]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture Media and Sport has no specific plans in respect of the launch of the mark but encourages all sponsored bodies, where the opportunities to further the aims of fair trade are greater, to provide support by using and marketing fair trade goods and promoting the trade mark.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of visitors to the UK from overseas(a) during the last three months and (b) in the same period, in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [62062]

  Dr. Howells
  Data are collected in terms of visits rather than visitors. These are shown in the table.

  Number of visits to the UK by overseas residents

  Number (million)

  (a)

  February to April 2002

  5.3

  (b)

  (i)

  February to April 2001

  5.3

  (ii)

  February to April 2000

  5.6

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the costs of ensuring that internet access in public libraries is broadband enabled; and if she will make a statement; [61805]

  (2) what targets she has set for the roll out of broadband services in public libraries; and if she will make a statement. [61806]

  Dr. Howells
  £100 million of lottery funding has been invested in ICT technical infrastructure and equipment to create a network of ICT learning centres in more than 4,000 public libraries across the UK. The programme is on target to connect all public libraries to the internet, wherever practical, by the end of 2002, and based on the
  277W
  information we have received from local authorities we estimate that around 90 per cent. of these libraries will have broadband connections of 2 Mb or more. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of providing broadband access to libraries, since it is the policy of many local authorities to procure broadband connectivity across the range of local services.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62203]

  Mr. Caborn
  My ministerial colleagues and I have met many representatives from industry in the course of our duties since 8 June 2001 as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve this confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Government to release details of specific meetings with private individuals, organisations or companies.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information is held by her Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) conn ctions with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61835]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department holds no such information, nor was any such information held in January 2002.

  Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are being taken to increase the number of libraries in the United Kingdom. [61903]

  Dr. Howells
  It is for the 149 library authorities to make their own operational decisions about library provision within the requirements of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act. The public library standards, including a target for the numbers of static libraries per household within an authority area, help define but do not increase those requirements.

  In January 2002, my Department wrote to all English local authorities, notifying them of the arrangements for entering bids for the private finance initiative credits held by DCMS by 31 May. No library bids were received from Coventry.

  Film Productions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are being taken to attract more film productions to the United Kingdom. [61907]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government seek to create an economic environment in which the film industry can flourish, including through tax relief.

  The British Film Commission (BFC), which is a division of the Film Council, is responsible (with the British Film Office in Los Angeles) for promoting the use of British locations, facilities and production personnel to overseas film and television producers.

  It delivers its objectives by working alongside a network of regional screen agencies to provide a comprehensive and free information service to international production executives. It compiles up-to-date information on all aspects of film production in the UK. The information is disseminated through its website, various marketing materials and by holding international seminars.

  Earlier this year, the BFC completed a major US marketing exercise in both Los Angeles and New York to encourage inward investment into the UK. 20 seminars were held on film financing, production and post-production. They were attended by representatives from each of the seven major Hollywood studios, as well as independent producers, lawyers and film financiers.

  Recent major productions attracted to the UK by the BFC include Band of Brothers, Chocolat, Lam Croft: Tomb Raider (and sequel currently in pre-production), The Mummy Returns, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and the sequel currently in production. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the(a) names of the successful bidder for the construction of asylum accommodation centres and (b) value of each contract awarded. [59077]

  Beverley Hughes
  We expect to be in a position to decide who will be selected to design, build and operate the first of the trial centres after the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Contracts have not yet been awarded.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 May, Ref 57343, when the first asylum accommodation centre will be open. [60293]

  Beverley Hughes
  Firm opening dates have yet to be finalised, and will depend upon such issues as planning consent, the nature of each site, and the design proposals.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the full criminal record of all those detained at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre was known to he(a) police, (b) Immigration Service and (c) contractors. [60290]
  279W
  Beverley Hughes
  The full criminal record of all those detained at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre would not have been known. It must be remembered that the overseas backgrounds of individuals—including any criminal activities—will not usually be known at the time of their detention. However, where such details are known, they are passed to the removal centre contractor if they indicate that the individual poses a particular risk.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the criminal record of those admitted to the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton will be known to(a) the police, (b) the Immigration Service and (c) the contractor. [60289]

  Beverley Hughes
  While there is no direct relationship between asylum seekers and criminality, for security reasons, criminal record checks will be carried out. Where such checks reveal information, which is relevant to those involved in the management of the sites or to the police, should placement occur, this will be made available.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if accommodation centres for asylum seekers will have a statutory obligation to(a) have a child protection policy and (b) have a designated member of staff with responsibility for child protection. [59717]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: We are discussing accommodation centres and child protection issues with the Department of Health.

  Accommodation centres will not be statutorily obliged to have a child protection policy, but we will require those operating the centres to have a policy in place and appropriate arrangements for putting it into action.

  Accommodation centres will come within the ambit of the Children Act 1989. Section 47 of that Act places a duty on a local authority to investigate if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. In such circumstances, the authority has a duty to make such inquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where on Throckmorton airfield he proposes to build the asylum accommodation centre. [59274]

  Beverley Hughes
  The planning notification to be submitted shortly will specify the suggested location for the proposed accommodation centre at Throckmorton.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to inform local communities in the area of sites proposed for asylum accommodation centres about these centres and to consult with them about their impact. [59083]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave him on 3 February 2002,Official Report, column 460W.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what formal offer has been made to QinetiQ for the purchase of land for an asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton; what the size of such offer is; and if he will make a statement. [59370]
  280W
  Beverley Hughes
  Negotiations with QinetiQ are continuing, no formal offer has yet been made.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the nature of the sleeping arrangements planned for asylum accommodation centres is for(a) single men and (b) families; and if he will make a statement. [59276]

  Beverley Hughes
  The nature of the sleeping arrangements will depend upon design proposals submitted by bidders in response to the procurement competition within certain parameters to be established by the Home Office. Those parameters will include the stipulation that families will be accommodated separately from single people.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 795W, Ref 57089, for what reason he does not consider it appropriate to put into the public domain details of sites which were not considered to merit detailed assessment as possible sites for asylum accommodation centres. [61262]

  Beverley Hughes
  We do not consider there to be any genuine public interest in disclosing sites which were dismissed at an early stage and were not subject to detailed assessment. The disclosure of information of this nature would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion in our view. We have given details of the sites where detailed assessments have been taking place and we will do likewise in future.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to permit an asylum accommodation centre to be located close to a girls' school. [61185]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: All relevant factors will be considered when decisions are taken on the location of accommodation centres.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department is making of the suitability of Mayfield College, East Sussex, as a potential asylum accommodation centre. [61186]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: None.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional asylum accommodation centres he estimates will be required; and what the anticipated timescale is for announcing their locations. [61188]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: On 29 October 2001, we announced our intention to provide 3,000 trial accommodation centre places. We have put into the public domain the location of all sites, which were considered to merit detailed assessment for the purpose of siting an accommodation centre and will continue to do so in the future.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59496]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows.
  281W

  Home Office

  Prison Service

  January

  29

  5

  February

  27

  4

  March

  31

  4

  April

  26

  2

  May

  33

  4

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases have been issued by his Department(a) in each month between May and December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [59495]

  Beverley Hughes
  (a) The number of press releases issued by the Home Department between May and December 1997 was:

  Number issued

  May

  16

  June

  24

  July

  43

  August

  19

  September

  31

  October

  59

  November

  40

  December

  39

  In addition, the Prison Service issued 47 press releases during this period but a monthly breakdown is not available.

  (b) The number of press releases issued in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive was:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Home Office

  512

  450

  422

  336

  Prison Service

  75

  78

  93

  91

  Probation Inspectorate

  3

  —

  11

  14

  Prison Inspectorate

  7

  39

  38

  59

  Police Inspectorate

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Fire Inspectorate

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Drug Treatment
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the(a) cost and (b) accuracy of the methods used for testing for drug abuse; and if he will make a statement. [58513]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Information on the costs and accuracy of the various methods used for testing drug abuse is not held centrally. To answer this question would incur disproportionate costs.

  The Pilot Programme for testing for drug misuse under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced the use of oral fluid (saliva) on-site screening tests, following an evaluation study by the Forensic Science Service. This found that oral fluid provided an effective and accurate alternative to urine for screening for heroine and cocaine.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the duties are of hon. Members 282W
  appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties; [59981]

  (2) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59968]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 809W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 29 January from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford concerning Mr. Wong of Chelmsford. [60675]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 7 June 2002. I am sorry he did not receive an earlier response.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department(a) received the letter of 15 October 2001 from the hon. Member for Manchester Central, regarding Dr ECC reference PO18117/01, (b) granted a residence permit to Dr ECC and leave to remain to Ms LOR and daughter and (c) replied to the hon. Member for Manchester Central; and if he will give the reasons for the delay in resolving this case. [60554]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The letter of 15 October 2001 was received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on 18 October 2001. Dr ECC was granted a residence permit and eave to remain was granted to Ms LOR and her daughter on 29 December 2001.

  My right hon. and noble Friend, the former Minister of State at Home Office (Lord Rooker) wrote to my hon. friend on 29 April 2002. I am sorry that there was a delay in replying.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 28 February, Ref 4398/2. [60795]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 7 June 2002. I am sorry the delay in replying.

  Animal Research
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report of the Expert Group on Efficient Regulation concerning the licensing of animal research in the UK; when he formally responded to the report; and what steps the Government have taken to improve the efficiency of the licensing process. [60719]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We received a copy of the report of the Expert Group on Efficient Regulation on 8 October 2001 and a formal response was sent to the Chairman of the Expert Group on 5 November 2001. This noted that the report did not suggest any changes in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and advised that we would look carefully at its recommendations regarding the
  283W
  administration of the 1986 Act. A further response will be sent when we have completed consideration of those recommendations.

  Separately to our consideration of the Expert Group report, we have taken a number of recent steps to improve the efficiency of the licensing of scientific procedures under the 1986 Act, mainly arising from discussions conducted in 2000–2001 under the auspices of the Prime Minister's Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force. A review of the ethical review process was completed in November 2001 and best practice for more efficient working of the process is now being widely disseminated around establishments. New guidance has also been issued on completing project licence application forms, and industry has been given information on errors commonly found in licence application forms, which should help to reduce the number of applications submitted with such errors in future, and therefore reduce delays.

  Most importantly, extra resources are starting to be devoted to the assessment and processing of licence applications. These include development of a new computer system, which is expected to enable electronic processing of all licence applications, in due course. There will also, as announced in March 2001, be a significant increase in the size of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate from 21 inspectors to 33 by March 2004. We have also improved the relevant section of the Home Office website to provide easier access for applicants and licence holders to reference documents and best practice material. The new website will go live shortly.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to speed up the process of granting work permits to supply agencies and supply teachers. [60062]

  Beverley Hughes
  The current work permit policy excludes issuing work permits to recruitment agencies, employment agencies and other similar businesses. However, as part of a review of this specific issue, Work Permits UK (WP(UK)) who administer the work permit arrangements, are currently undertaking a formal consultation, which began on 18 March 2002, with customers and stakeholders as to whether the scope of the work permit arrangements should be extended to agencies. The consultation ended on 14 June 2002.

  In conjunction with the consultation, WP (UK) are currently piloting a scheme which allows agencies within the education sector, subject to certain criteri, to apply for work permits for teachers. The cases are processed within one day of being received. The results of this pilot will be fed into the formal agency review.

  I can assure my hon. Friend that I will give swift consideration to the opinions expressed in the consultation and I am hoping to announce a decision on the outcome by September 2002.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department enforces a284W
  maximum retirement age of most staff; and whether it has a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age, and those ages. [59335]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The normal retirement age for non-industrial staff Home Office staff is 60 and for industrial staff 65. The Department has recently reviewed its age retirement policy and from 1 April 2002 all non-industrial staff up to Grade 6 throughout the Home Office (including the agencies but excluding the Prison Service) have the option to retire at any point between the ages of 60 and 65.

  The Prison Service is currently carrying out its own separate formal review of age retirement policy.

  The Home Office has also revised its recruitment policy from 1 April 2002 to allow for the recruitment of staff up to the age of 64, subject to their meeting normal standards of health. Provided that there is an expectation of a reasonable period of employment and a return on recruitment and training, the primary criterion for selection will be the ability of a candidate to carry out the duties of the vacant post.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the CRE; and if he will make a statement. [60569]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last met with the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Gurbux Singh, on 29 May 2002. They have regular meetings to keep each other updated on issues of current and mutual interest with regard to race relations and equality. They also met on other occasions during the year.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60472]

  Beverley Hughes
  The supporting targets to the public service agreements (PSAs) are the service delivery agreements (SDAs). These are listed in full alongside the PSAs they support on the Home Office Website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk). These were set during the Spending Review process in consultation with Her Majesty's Treasury and key stakeholders. These are reported on regularly internally and on a quarterly basis to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Other Home Office targets are listed in the published Home Office Business Plan, which can also be viewed in full on our website. The Business Plan for 2002–03 will be published on the 13 June. Progress on targets listed in here, that are not PSAs and SDAs, is reported to the Permanent Secretary and the Home Office Group Executive Board on a regular basis. The Business Plan targets are set in relation to the agreed PSA and SDA targets and also in consultation with Directors and key stakeholders within the core Home Office and within

  285W
  agencies, NDPBs and local delivery areas. In addition, as part of the regular stocktake process between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, we provide a prog ess report on specific targets to the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit.

  Due to the number of additional targets that are contained within the SDA and the Business Plan, it is not possible to list them all here.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average delay was between disposal of the appeal as defined in section 94(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and issue of papers granting leave to enter or remain as a refugee with respect to persons who won their asylum appeals in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [60536]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available and could only be obtained by examination of individual case records thereby incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were in prisons run by the Scottish Prison Service, broken down by establishment, on 1 May; and how many are being held. [60821]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available data for asylum detainees are for 30 March 2002. At that date there were no asylum seekers detained solely under Immigration Act powers in Scottish prisons. Data for asylum seekers charged or convicted of a criminal offence are not available.

  When detention is necessary, the Government are committed to pursuing a strategy of detaining both immigration offenders and asylum seekers in dedicated removal centres. Prisons are used for a small number of detainees who cannot be managed within the immigration removal estate.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 June 2002 will be published on 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom were outstanding at the end of each(a) month since June 2001 and (b) June since 1997. [60831]

  Beverley Hughes
  Statistics on the number of outstanding applications for leave to remain are not currently available.

  Refugee Applications
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many residents of Glasgow, Cathcart constituency are awaiting a decision on their application for refugee status; [62145]
  286W
  (2) how many residents of Glasgow are awaiting a decision on their application for refugee status. [62147]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port (for those applications made at port—these accounted for 36 per cent. of applications in 2001). Corresponding information on initial decision outcomes and cases outstanding relating to persons in particular areas of the United Kingdom is also unavailable. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much public money the Government have invested in the marmoset experiment programme at Cambridge University; and if he will make a statement; [61114]

  (2) whether (a) food and (b) water deprivation were part of the experiments carried out on marmosets at Cambridge University; [61116]

  (3) how many marmosets have been experimented on at Cambridge University; what the tests were designed to achieve; and how successful the tests were; [61115]

  (4) what steps he took to ensure that the marmosets subject to experimentation procedures at Cambridge University were (a) adequately supervised and (b) kept in conditions consistent with their physiological and behavioural needs. [61117]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the percentage change in the(a) prison population and (b) the number of notifiable offences in (i) 1979 to 1994, (ii) 1994 to 1999 and (iii) 1999 to 2002; and if he will make a statement. [60138]

  Hilary Benn
  The percentage changes over the requested time periods for England and Wales are given in the table.

  Percentage

  Change in average prison population

  Change in number of notifiable offences1

  1979 to 1994

  +15.4

  +107.1

  1994 to 1999–2000

  +32.8

  +0.9

  1999–00 to 2000–01

  -0.5

  -2.5

  2000–01 to 2001–02

  +4.6

  2—

  1 Data showing the number of notifiable offences has been collected for financial years since 1999, and is shown as such. Prison population data has been given to match.

  2Not available.

  The percentage change in the average prison population from 1999 to 30 April 2002 (latest available data) was 9 per cent. The equivalent data are not available for the number of notifiable offences.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many baton rounds were discharged by the British Army(a) in each year since 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2002 and (b) from 1 April 2002 to 24 May 2002. [60762]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of baton rounds fired by the Army since 1 April 1999 are set out in the table.

  Year

  Baton rounds fired

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  0

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  6

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  15

  1 April 2002 to 24 May 2002

  14

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the guidelines under which the British Army operates when firing baton rounds in their support of PSNI operations. [60761]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The armed forces are deployed to Northern Ireland to provide military support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has primacy for security matters in the Province. Soldiers carry out their role using the same practices and procedures that are applicable to the rest of the British Army wherever they may be deployed in the world. While these practices and procedures may be different to those of the police, they are of a commensurate standard.

  There are differences between the guidelines for the police and the Army on the use of baton rounds which stem entirely from the differences in their respective operational structures and practices. There are no plans to bring the guidelines exactly into line with the regime governing the use of those equipments by the police.

  Soldiers are trained in the use of baton guns and when deployed are issued with guidelines about their use. Baton rounds may be fired, if authorised by the Army commander t the scene, when absolutely necessary to protect against physical violence. However, in exceptional circumstances where a soldier is required to act in self defence the use of a baton round does not require the commander's authority, but the soldier must be satisfied that the force used is proportionate to the threat. In all circumstances soldiers are trained to use no more force than is absolutely necessary.

  If a baton round is fired, a Baton Log Report, giving details of the incident, is completed and forwarded, through the chain of command, to HQNI. If a member of the public wishes to lodge a formal complaint about the Army firing a baton round this can be done through the police who will conduct an investigation.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will report progress on the requirements for reporting by third party administrators and insurers of pension schemes without trustees. [61908]

  Mr. McCartney
  From 1 April 2002, we introduced a range of measures to help speed up the process of winding-up pension schemes and to increase the accountability of those involved in running schemes. These measures include a requirement for those involved in the administration of pension schemes to report to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority within 1 month of becoming aware that a scheme has no trustees.

  As at 14 June 2002, 340 reports had been received by the Authority. These are under investigation.

  Local Government Councillors
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact being an elected local government councillor has on an individual's ability to claim incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement. [61948]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Incapacity benefit is intended for people who are unable to work due to their illness or disability. Benefit is not therefore normally payable to people who work and receive an income.

  There is, however, an exception for local authority councillors. This special provision recognises the particular obligations placed on councillors by disregarding all work carried out in connection with their elected office in deciding entitlement to incapacity benefit. Any allowances paid are only taken into account if they exceed the permitted work rules limit of £66.00 in any week. In this event, benefit is reduced by the amount that the allowance exceeds the limit.

  Overseas Patients (Benefit Entitlement)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if it is his policy to treat persons sent abroad for hospital or other medical treatment under the National Health Service as having uninterrupted residence in the United Kingdom as regards their entitlement to benefits; and in what circumstances in relation to health condition and country involved such treatment extends to those seeking overseas treatment in the private sector. [61909]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 461, people in receipt of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance or the new Pension Credit who travel abroad for medical treatment funded by the National Health Service will be treated as being resident in the United Kingdom.

  For all other benefits, and for those who go overseas to seek private medical treatment, the existing rules on periods of temporary absence abroad will continue to apply.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when it will be possible for benefit recipients to open accounts with the proposed universal bank. [60846]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Introduction of universal banking services by the Post Office is a matter for them. They tell us they are on schedule for introduction in April 2003.

  Permitted Work Scheme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received on the implications and operation of the new permitted work scheme; how many(a) gainers and (b) losers she estimates there are (i) in this scheme and (ii) the previous therapeutic earnings arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [56588]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We consulted widely on the permitted work rules for people receiving incapacity benefits and the new arrangements which took effect from 8 April have been generally welcomed by disability organisations.

  We want to give people on these benefits the opportunity to ease their way back into work without it affecting their benefit. Under the old rules, people had to show that the work would be beneficial to their medical condition. This was sometimes difficult to prove. The new rules help to open up employment opportunities for people of working age claiming a benefit because of their illness or disability. Both therapeutic work and the new permitted work rules allow people to try out some work without losing benefit.

  We estimate that between 27,000 and 54,000 people receiving an incapacity benefit were undertaking therapeutic work at 8 April. People already doing therapeutic work when the rules changed can carry on doing it until April 2003, after which they can apply to do permitted work and will be subject to the new permitted work rules. These allow work for 16 hours a week on average and earnings of up to £66 a week for a 26 week period which can be extended for a further 26 weeks in certain circumstances.

  We anticipate that the numbers doing permitted work will increase to around 70,000 in the first year of the new scheme and to around 110,000 over the next four years. In addition everyone receiving an incapacity benefit will be able to earn up to £20 a week indefinitely.

  Consultant

  Project details

  Cost (£)

  OCP1

  Refocus on growth areas/key accounts and develop a flatter organisational structure/reduced level of management layers.

  193,000

  OCP1

  A separate piece of work to reorganise Interwork into a more efficient, flatter structure better able to deliver WORKSTEP support and to enable more people to progress to unsupported jobs outside of Remploy.

  137,000

  Peter Whittaker/Russam GSM

  Refocusing packaging project to encourage growth of the business.

  25,000

  Ray Emptage

  Improve the business planning process and help Remploy become more market focused in looking at its skills and strengths/abilities. Involved an in-depth study of market places to identify new areas of business and strategies to strengthen market penetration.

  87,000

  Flaxman Bros

  Recommend site improvements at Barking.

  10,000

  Paul Clark

  Recycling project, developing a new area of business.

  31,000

  Life Cycle Solutions

  Recycling project, related to the above.

  2,000

  Deloitte Touche2

  Improving financial control systems in furniture business.

  6,000

  Deloitte Touche2

  Developing operational systems to support delivery of Interwork.

  26,000

  290W
  These changes, together with our other measures to support people in finding suitable work, will help more people to mov off benefits and into employment.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in receipt of benefits, other than retirement pension in each parliamentary constituency in(a) Scotland and (b) Wales receive payment of their benefits (i) through local sub-post offices and (ii) directly into their bank accounts. [58126]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on how many persons in receipt of benefits other than Retirement Pension in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland and Wales is only available for certain benefits, and this has been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter of 31 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay in response to his letter ref MOS(W)01/0038. [58748]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I replied to the hon. Member on 14 June.

  Remploy
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many firms of external consultants have been engaged by Remploy between April 2001 and March 2002; and if he will list them; [59246]

  (2) which firms of consultants are engaged by Remploy; [59247]

  (3) for what purposes consultants have been engaged by Remploy in the past 12 months; [59248]

  (4) what the total cost is for services provided by consultants engaged by Remploy over the past 12 months, broken down by (a) consultancy firm and (b) individual projects. [59249]

  Maria Eagle
  In the period April 2001 to March 2002, Remploy has engaged 13 sets of consultants from 11 firms at a cost of £723,000. This represents 0.3 per cent. of Remploy's turnover in that year. The consultants were engaged to assist Remploy in the delivery of its modernisation strategy. Remploy currently has no consultancy support.

  The further information requested is in the table.
  291W

  Consultant

  Project details

  Cost (£)

  Ashridge

  Productivity and continuous improvement project aimed at removing bottlenecks and barriers—process and attitudinal. A team of Remploy people has been trained in Ashridge methodology and is rolling out the programme. This is improving significantly employee involvement, morale and productivity in those sites where the programme has been run.

  172,000

  Bryan Harrison

  Developing new areas of business for Interwork—links with NHS.

  2,000

  Fulcrum

  Property portfolio review.

  6,000

  Quantum Edge

  Developing new processes for the WORKSTEP programme—development plans and profiling.

  26,000

  Total

  —

  723,000

  1 Organisation, Consulting Partnership

  2 Remploy's external auditors

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average time is that the Child Support Agency has taken to produce a substantive reply to correspondence in the last 12 months for which figures are available: [59701]

  (2) what steps have been taken to guarantee a response from the Child Support Agency to a correspondent within five working days. [59702]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 17 June 2002:

  The Se retary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.

  You ask two questions of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
  what the average time the Child Support Agency has taken to produce a substantive reply to correspondence in the last 12 months for which figures are available is; and
  what steps have been taken to guarantee a response from the Child Support Agency to a correspondent within five working days.

  I am sorry but information is not gathered in the format you have requested.

  The 2001/2002 target for customer correspondence was to reply to 70% of correspondence within 10 days. In the event 82% of correspondence was replied to within 10 days.

  The Child Support Reform Programme is intended to create a step improvement in the level of service provided to customers. This is a large undertaking and its implementation will be the prime focus of the Agency in the coming year. Against that background we are not, in the short term, looking to improve the timeliness of our responses to correspondence.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59470]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is as follows.

  Number

  January

  22

  February

  32

  March

  33

  April

  22

  May 1 to date

  27

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE directive. [60733]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State (Energy) at the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61019]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Resource DEL (departmental expenditure limit) for 2002–03 is £1,318,597,000. Due to pay negotiations we are unable to say how much of that we expect to be attributed to staff costs. Comparative provisional outturn figures for 2001–02 show a Resource DEL of £1,268,738,000, of which £316,811,000 or 24.97 per cent. represents the provisional outturn for staff costs. The figure for staff costs includes the cost of locally engaged staff overseas.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60914]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 199W.

  We have no press and advertising campaigns planned for the United Kingdom in 2002–03. We intend to print two public information leaflets on Britain and the European Union at a total cost of approximately £4,000.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what has been the(a) cost

  293W
  and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced; [60886]

  (2) what the (a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61633]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes performance against its targets, including on value for money and the resources it has used in its departmental report.

  BAE Systems
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department has had with representatives of BAE Systems since June 2001. [62263]

  Mr. MacShane
  Officials and Ministers at the FCO frequently meet representatives of BAES and other British businesses with major overseas interests.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of UK citizens involved in terrorist groups in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [61845]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This country should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism overseas. The Terrorism Act 2000 (which entered into force in February 2001) is designed to help the UK police and courts take effective action against those who seek to plan, carry out or support terrorism from or in the UK.

  We have proscribed three Kashmiri terrorist groups. Membership of these groups and support for their activities are criminal offences in the United Kingdom and we will continue to take action to prevent these groups from fund-raising or recruiting here.

  Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 261W, on the OPCW, if he will make a statement on the financial and administrative management differences referred to. [62196]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We understood the main financial and administrative differences to be:

  (a) The failure of the OPCW Secretariat to implement the Financial Regulations in 2000, leading to expenditure exceeding income by £2.5 million.

  (b) Presentation by the Secretariat of incomplete and occasionally inaccurate information on the financial situation in 2001.

  (c) The drastic cuts in the operational programme intended to resolve the 2001 financial situation, before the scale of the problem was clear and the options evaluated.
  294W
  (d) Presentation of unrealistic budgetary proposals, over a number of years, that required extensive revision.

  (e) The handling of a staff grading review which led to legal action at the ILO Administrative Tribunal, and the handling of action subsequent to the ILO judgment.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 21 May 2002,Official Report, columns 261–62W, on the OPCW, if he will list the evident shortcomings referred to. [62197]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The shortcomings relate to the failure to comply with the OPCW financial regulations. These regulations require the irector-General to "prudently manage appropriations…to ensure that expenditures can be kept within funds available". Expenditure in 2000 exceeded income by £2.5 million. The OPCW external auditor's report on the 2000 financial statements confirmed that these provisions had not been complied with and recommended corrective action. The external auditor also drew attention to the failure to comply with regulations governing transfers of funds between appropriations, and recommended action to minimise excessive use of transfers.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 603W, if he will make a statement on (a) the views expressed by the members of the OPCW represented on the Executive Council, and (b) the views expressed by the UK at that time. [61989]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A significant number of the members of the Executive Council expressed the view that they had lost confidence in the Director-General. As a result, the UK concluded that it would be in the best interests of the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention if the Director-General were to step down voluntarily to make way for someone who could enjoy the full confidence of all the members of the organisation. The Director-General was informed of the UK's position prior to the vote of no confidence at the Executive Council meeting in March.

  MOX Shipments
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications Her Majesty's Government have received from the New Zealand Government in respect of the return shipment of substandard MOX plutonium fuel from Japan to BNFL Sellafield. [61966]

  Mr. MacShane
  No communications have been received from the New Zealand Government on this issue.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from(a) other states and (b) non-governmental organisations in respect of the shipment of rejected MOX plutonium fuel from Japan back to Sellafield. [61972]

  Mr. MacShane
  Her Majesty's Government have received representations from Chile and the Republic of Mauritius, and from Greenpeace.

  Greece
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the Greek Government have visited the United Kingdom in the past two months in an official capacity; and what discussions the Government have had with visiting members of the Greek Government. [61991]

  Peter Hain
  The Greek Minister for Defence, Mr. Papantoniou, visited the UK on 8 and 9 May. He met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. They discussed a number of bilateral and multilateral issues. The Greek Deputy Minister for Transport, Dr. Spyros Vougias, visited the UK from 28 to 31 May, but his programme did not involve Ministers.

  Mrs. Sonia Gandhi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in New Delhi. [62191]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Sonia Gandhi (leader of the Indian Congress Party in opposition) during his India visit on 29 May. They had a constructive and useful discussion focusing on the current high tensions between India and Pakistan.

  Human Rights
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries the UK delegation to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva has(a) voted for and (b) voted against with re ard to a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [62419]

  Mr. MacShane
  In accordance with her mandate established by the UN General Assembly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, has a central role to play in ensuring that human rights are fully integrated in the work of the UN. Mrs. Robinson determines her own travel programme. Since she took office in 1997, she has visited a large number of countries in all regions of the world at the invitation of their Governments or other organisations (eg to attend a conference). It is rare for country resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights to include provision for a visit by the high commissioner. When that is the case, the UK voting position is determined by the merit of the resolution.

  Self-government
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status accorded by the United Nations to(a) Ceuta, (b) Melilla and (c) Gibraltar. [62361]

  Mr. MacShane
  For the purposes of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, Gibraltar appears on the list of territories which have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. Ceuta and Melilla do not appear on this list, and have not been considered by the UN to be non-self-governing territories.
  296W

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for reform of the common agricultural policy in the light of the conclusions reached at the General Affairs Council at Luxembourg on 10 June. [61877]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The General Affairs Council on 10 June discussed the enlargement of the European Union. It did not reach any formal conclusions.

  Along with Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, the UK wants to put to one side the question of extending direct payments to the candidates for farming until later in the enlargement negotiations. Most European Union member states are content with this proposal.

  Reform of the common agricultural policy was not on the agenda at the General Affairs Council. Her Majesty's Government consider that the Commission's on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, due in mid-July, should make a substantive contribution to the process of reform of the common agricultural policy. Our objectives for reform are well known and are shared with a growing number of EU member states. We believe that the reform of the common agricultural policy should take place in parallel with, but not be a pre-condition for, enlargement.

  Visitors' Liaison Officers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitors' liaison officers were dismissed from their posts in each year since 1990. [62784]

  Mr. MacShane
  As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 815W, liaison officers are employed freelance, therefore the question of dismissal does not arise.

  Iraq
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods on the Military List have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [63320]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Trade and Industry recently approved two licences for the export to Iraq of protective de-mining vests, which appear on the Military List, for use by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) de-mining team in Iraq.

  The UN Iraq Sanctions Committee approved this export to Iraq un er the Oil for Food programme (OFF). Under OFF, Iraq is allowed to export unlimited quantities of oil to fund the purchase of humanitarian goods. The export is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has collated on the prevention of medical supplies and medical journals from entering Iraq by the United Nations Sanctions Committee. [R] [61598]
  297W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Medical journals and medicines are not prevented from entering Iraq by the UN Sanctions Committee. Other medical supplies are only very rarely denied where there is real concern that they will be abused for military-related purposes.

  European Youth Convention
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the United Kingdom at the Youth Convention on the Future of Europe. [63321]

  Peter Hain
  The Youth Convention is an initiative proposed by Valery Giscard d'Estaing, President of the European Convention, to involve young people in the 'Future of Europe' debate. Representatives nominated by member states and accession countries, and the European Parliament, will hold a plenary session on 9–10 July, before reporting to the convention on 11–12 July.

  The UK's delegation has six members. Three were selected by a national essay competition, for which there was over 80 entries, organised jointly by the Foreign and

  £

  Destination

  Means of transport

  Cost of transport (£)

  Accommodation cost (£)

  Subsistence cost (£)

  Total (£)

  Michael Williams

  4–5 April 2001

  Belgrade and Skopje

  RAF flight

  —

  150.06

  32.00

  182.06

  24–25 April 2001

  Montenegro

  RAF flight

  —

  1—

  6.37

  6.37

  30 August 2001

  Macedonia (day trip)

  RAF flight

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  5–6 September 2001

  Abuja

  RAF flight

  —

  314.29

  78.00

  392.29

  17–18 October 2001

  Luxembourg and Turkey

  RAF flight

  —

  2—

  33.74

  33.74

  9–14 November 2001

  New York

  Flight

  2,645.50

  c.670.00

  c.300.00

  c.3,615.50

  22–23 November 2001

  Iran and Pakistan

  RAF flight

  —

  115.58

  19.52

  135.00

  21–23 January 2002

  Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi

  Flight3

  —

  197.90

  99.06

  296.96

  26–28 February 2002

  India

  Flight

  3,352.81

  c.50.00

  22.36

  3,425.17

  Ed Owen

  11 June 2001

  Luxembourg (day trip)

  RAF flight

  —

  n/a

  12.43

  12.43

  9 July 2001

  Paris (day trip)

  RAF flight

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  11–12 July 2001

  Washington

  Flight

  4,346.80

  151.82

  129.90

  4,628.52

  17–18 July 2001

  Brussels

  Eurostar

  380.00

  4—

  n/a

  380.00

  24–27 September 2001

  Jordan, Iran, Israel, Palestinian Authority and Egypt

  RAF flight

  —

  200.66

  97.18

  297.84

  23–24 October 2001

  Washington

  Flight

  3,048.70

  149.17

  79.00

  3,276.87

  19–20 November 2001

  Brussels and Barcelona

  RAF flight

  —

  52.00

  74.19

  126.19

  6–7 December 2001

  Gibraltar

  Flight

  852.40

  5—

  20.00

  872.40

  31 January to 2 February 2002

  Washington

  Flight

  4,095.90

  307.14

  132.32

  4,537.36

  12–16 February 2002

  Turkey, Israel, Palestinian Authority and Afghanistan

  RAF and charter flights

  —

  391.36

  71.00

  462.36

  21 February 2002

  The Hague (day trip)

  RAF flight

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1 British Forces accommodation

  2 Ambassador's residence

  3 French Foreign Minister's official aircraft

  4 Counsellor, UK Representative

  5 Governor's residence

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has hadwith representatives of the Minsk group and Azerbaijan in respect of Nagorno-Karabakh; and if he will make a statement. [R] [61599]
  298W
  Commonwealth Office and The Independent: Claire McCarthy, Miles Kemp and Carina Dunkerly. Three others were appointed by the main UK political parties represented at the convention. They are Blair McDougall (Labour); Sam Dobbyn (Conservative); and Alison Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat).

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2001, to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyne),Official Report, column 816W, on special advisers, what the accommodation and subsistence costs were for each trip; if those costs are included in the figures in the answer; and what the (a) starting point, (b) means of transport, (c) destination, (d) overnight accommodation and (e) point of return were of his predecessor's special adviser's trip to Montenegro on 24/25 April 2001. [62628]

  Mr. Straw
  The Montenegro visit started and ended in London; Dr. Williams flew by RAF aircraft and was accommodated by British forces. The full breakdown for trips listed in my answer of 10 June is:

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in frequent contact with representatives of the Minsk group. The French ambassador in Baku briefed EU embassies on 17 May about the Prague meeting on 13–15 May between the personal representatives of the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Azeri Deputy Foreign Minister, Araz Azimov (who has been appointed as President Aliev's special representative on Nagorno
  299W
  Karabakh) visited the UK in February. His Armenian counterpart, Armen Martirosian, visited in March. They both had discussions in the Foreign Office, including with the then Under-Secretary, my lion. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw).

  Counter Terrorism
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 605W, on counter terrorism, if he will place in the Library a copy of the additional information submitted to the UNSC Counter Terrorism Committee by the United Kingdom. [62003]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes.

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools: Pupil: teacher ratios by type of school Position in January each year1

  1991

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  22002

  Maintained Nursery Schools

  England

  19.1

  18.9

  18.6

  18.4

  18.1

  17.7

  15.6

  Scotland3

  25.7

  24.7

  23.1

  31.3

  28.9

  33.9

  n/a

  North-west

  19.3

  19.6

  19.3

  19.0

  18.7

  18.1

  16.8

  South-east

  18.1

  16.3

  16.5

  16.4

  16.3

  15.9

  13.8

  Liverpool

  17.9

  18.7

  16.7

  16.9

  16.2

  13.7

  12.6

  Manchester

  14.8

  17.3

  16.7

  15.9

  11.8

  11.6

  7.8

  St. Helens

  17.9

  20.5

  21.3

  21.6

  22.0

  19.4

  18.9

  St. Helens South

  4—

  21.8

  25.3

  5—

  24.8

  25.0

  6—

  Maintained primary schools7

  England

  22.2

  23.4

  23.7

  23.5

  23.3

  22.9

  22.5

  Scotland

  19.5

  19.6

  19.9

  19.4

  19.1

  19.0

  n/a

  North-west

  22.8

  23.9

  24.0

  23.9

  23.4

  22.9

  22.3

  South-east

  22.8

  23.2

  23.6

  23.6

  23.2

  22.9

  22.3

  Liverpool

  22.4

  23.6

  23.5

  23.1

  22.7

  22.3

  21.6

  Manchester

  22.3

  23.4

  24.7

  24.6

  24.0

  22.7

  21.8

  St. Helens

  23.0

  23.3

  23.2

  23.6

  23.2

  22.9

  22.4

  St. Helens South

  4—

  23.2

  23.2

  23.7

  23.1

  22.9

  6—

  Maintained secondary schools7

  England

  15.7

  16.7

  16.9

  17.0

  17.2

  17.1

  16.9

  Scotland

  12.2

  13.0

  13.2

  13.0

  12.9

  13.0

  n/a

  North-west

  15.4

  16.6

  16.7

  16.8

  16.8

  16.6

  16.3

  South-east

  16.2

  16.7

  16.9

  17.1

  17.3

  17.4

  17.2

  Liverpool

  14.9

  16.7

  16.7

  16.8

  16.7

  16.2

  15.5

  Manchester

  14.1

  15.9

  16.1

  16.1

  16.0

  16.0

  15.6

  St. Helens

  15.0

  15.6

  16.0

  15.9

  16.1

  16.1

  15.8

  St. Helens South

  4—

  15.7

  16.2

  16.2

  16.1

  16.0

  6—

  1September of previous year for Schools' Census in Scotland

  2Provisional

  3Figures for Scotland from 1998–99 include pre-school education centres (including those in partnership with local authorities).

  4Date is not available by parliamentary constituency prior to 1997.

  5No schools of this type in 1999.

  62002 data are not yet available by parliamentary constituency.

  7Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Note: n/a—Not available

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census in England; Schools Census/Pre-school Census/Pre-school and Daycare Census in Scotland.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average pupil-teacher ratio was within maintained(a) nursery schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools in (i) St. Helens South constituency, (ii) St. Helens metropolitan borough council area, (iii) Liverpool, (iv) Manchester, (v) the north-west, (vi) the south-east, (vii) England and (viii) Scotland in (1) 1991, (2) 1997, (3) 1998, (4) 1999, (5) 2000, (6) 2001 and (7) the quarter to March 2002. [50007]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 24 April 20021: The available information is shown in the table.
  301W

  Intermediate GNVQs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received urging the retention of intermediate GNVQs. [60878]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Ministers have met a number of heads of schools and colleges, and other interested parties, to hear their views on the timing of the withdrawal of the 6-unit GNVQ. In addition, a number of letters have been received. We are currently considering all these representations.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60899]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In respect of 2001–02, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 963W and 964W.

  Planned expenditure from the Department's central advertising and publicity budget for 2002–03 is £14.35 million. Departmental advertising spend may be subject to alteration during the year.

  Small Schools
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many small schools in the UK have been amalgamated since 1997. [61199]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Since 2000 the number of small schools in England that have been amalgamated is as follows:

  Number

  2000

  17

  2001

  25

  2002

  5

  The Department only holds data on schools in England. It does not have reliable data on the number of small schools that were amalgamated before 2000.

  Educational Institutions (Governors)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure that educational institutions in receipt of public funds publish a full list of governors. [61781]

  Mr. Miliband
  Maintained schools are already required to publish a list of governors, including each governor's category and the date their current term of office ends, in their annual report.

  City academies are required to notify the Charity Commission and Companies House of their trustees (governing body), and public access is through these bodies. For city technology colleges, the same applies to trustees. A list of governors is generally available through the governors annual report to parents. Although there is no specific requirement on further and higher education colleges to do so, public access requirements to FE college minutes mean that this information is in the public
  302W
  domain and most HE institutions publish the names of governing body members in their annual reports or elsewhere.

  Computer Literacy
  Mr. im Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken to increase computer literacy at(a) adult and (b) adolescent levels. [61902]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills aims to create, implement and support a dynamic framework for information and communications technology (ICT) skills. It has initiated a range of measures to increase computer literacy and widen access to the skills required for a modern knowledge economy.

  (a) For Adults: By the end of 2002 there will be over 6,000 UK online centres throughout England with access points in public libraries, colleges, local community centres and elsewhere. Older people are one of the key client groups for this initiative. In addition there are over 1,600 learndirect centres, which along with Further Education colleges and adult and community learning centres, offer many opportunities for adults to improve their ICT skills.

  (b) For adolescents: The national curriculum for ICT prepares pupils to participate in a rapidly changing world, in which work and other activities are increasingly transformed by access to varied and developing technology. Reforms to the national curriculum in England have ensured that all pupils aged five to 16 are taught ICT, either as a separate subject or through other subjects. We have also set challenging national targets for pupils' achievements in ICT at the end of Key Stage 3.

  Postgraduate Teaching Courses (North-east)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) courses and (b) places are available in the north-east of England providing postgraduate teaching qualifications. [62021]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03 there are 1,194 places available on 38 postgraduate courses of initial teacher training in the north-east Government office region.

  Educational Attainment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of children who lived(a) in a residential care home and (b) with foster parents (i) left their higher education course and (ii) completed higher education; and what grades were achieved, in the last five years for which figures are available. [62172]

  Margaret Hodge
  The requested information is not held centrally.

  Teachers (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers are(a) black and (b) Asian. [62176]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

  School Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools she has visited since 7 June 2001. [62177]

  Estelle Morris
  Since 7 June 2001 the Secretary of State has visited 29 schools.

  Examinations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she takes to(a) monitor the performance of local authorities and schools in SATs and public examinations and (b) audit the quality of information provided by local authorities to her Department. [62249]

  Mr. Miliband
  All LEAs and schools are required to set annual targets for the performance of their pupils in the Key Stage 2 and 3 National Curriculum tests and GCSE examinations. Schools' Key Stage 2 and GCSE results are published in performance tables and the Key Stage 3 results will also be published for the first time later this year.

  LEAs are required to set out their targets in their Education Development Plans (EDPs) and submit them to the Secretary of State for approv l. The Department and Ofsted worked together to assess the quality of the second generation of EDPs submitted by local education authorities in January 2002. The Department's Standards and Effectiveness Unit continues to provide challenge and support for LEAs' implementation of their EDPs. Ofsted inspections also report on the quality and effectiveness of implementation of EDPs.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision is available for teachers to use a proportion of their statutory Inset days to increase their awareness and understanding of industry and commerce. [62459]

  Mr. Miliband
  The timing, organisation and content of in-service training days (Inset) are entirely for individual Local Education Authorities (LEAs), governing bodies and head teachers to determine. If agreed by those above, there is no reason why a school cannot use Inset days to increase awareness and understanding of industry and commerce.

  Reading
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what empirical evidence she has collected on the relative success of teaching of reading by(a) whole language and real books method, (b) the national literacy strategy and (c) synthetic phonics. [62613]

  Mr. Miliband
  A wide range of research evidence about the teaching of reading was considered in the development of the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) as documented in the "Review of Research and other Related Evidence", published by the Department in 1998. National test results have shown that the NLS has improved the standards achieved in reading. In 2001, 84 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level for their age (level 2) in the Key Stage 1 reading tests—a rise of 4 percentage 304W
  points since 1998; 82 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level (level 4) in the Key Stage 2 reading tests—a rise of 11 percentage points since 1998. Phonics is a key part of the NLS, which advocates the use of both synthetic and analytic phonics.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average reading age is of pupils in each age cohort. [62615]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect centrally national data regarding the average reading age of pupils in each age cohort. The table therefore shows the percentage of pupils achieving the expected level for their age in the 2001 national Key Stage tests:

  Percentage of pupils achieving expected level in 2001 tests in all schools in England

  Key Stage

  Percentage

  KS1 Reading—Level 2 or above

  84

  KS2 Reading—Level 4 or above

  82

  KS3 English—Level 5 or above

  65

  Parenting
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what her policy is towards parents supporting school age children by providing appropriate help at home; [62774]

  (2) what her policy is on penalising children who have had parental assistance with school work. [62773]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government have no policy to penalise children for being helped by their parents with their school work. Indeed, we strongly endorse parents playing an active part in supporting their children's learning at home. We believe that children's education really benefits when parents create a learning-friendly environment at home and have a positive attitude to school and to learning. We have helped them in this by providing a range of information, resources, and guidance on how to get involved in their children's education. These include the "Parents' Centre" website, which contains information for parents about education, as well as how they can get involved, and links to useful resources for learning at home; the "Learning Journey" booklets, a series of guides to the curriculum informing parents of what their children will learn and how they can help; and "Parents + Schools" magazine, a termly publication informing parents of developments in the field of education, and containing hints, tips, and suggestions for becoming involved.

  The Department published national homework guidelines for schools in 1998 that, among other things, emphasise that schools should ensure they work closely with parents and ensure that they are given guidance about how best to help their children.

  Literacy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 11-year-olds are functionally illiterate. [62614]
  305W
  Mr. Miliband
  There is no measure of functional illiteracy. In 2001, however, 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved at least the expected level for their age (level 4) in the Key Stage 2 English tests, and a further 17 per cent. achieved level 3.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Service
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to(a) recruit, (b) retain and (c) train firefighters; and if he will make a statement. [61854]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) Regulations 1978 (statutory instrument 436), as amended, set criteria for appointment to the rank of firefighter. Matters of recruit selection and staff retention are, however, the responsibility of each individual fire authority. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does, however, prepare recruitment literature for the fire service.

  Responsibility for the efficient training of members of each fire service also rests with the local fire authority, under section 1(1)(b) of the Fire Services Act 1947. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works closely with the fire service on training and development. The Fire Service College is an executive agency of the office. We are seeking, with the fire service, to implement an over-arching development strategy encompassing all fire service staff at every career stage. Our goal is to promote the development of a fire service which better reflects the communities it serves and which, through effective and relevant training and development, maintains its high standards of professionalism.

  Housing Demand
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) advice he has received from (i) local authorities, (ii) the Housing Corporation, (iii) other statutory agencies and (iv) Government Departments about and (b) estimate he has made of the level of unmet housing need in each of the districts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in each of the last five years for which records are available. [62593]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government do not make estimates of housing need. Because of the wide variation in need between different parts of the country, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to carry out local housing needs assessments, which should be reflected in local authorities housing strategies, investment plans, and in the implementation of planning powers for affordable housing.

  Ensuring an adequate supply of housing, and a suitable balance between general market and affordable housing, is a key priority for the Government. We regularly receive letters from local authorities and other bodies concerning the need for housing, and take an interest in all such communication. The Government have increased investment in affordable housing through the Hou ing Corporation to £1.2 billion in 2003–04, nearly double 2000–01 levels.
  306W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the demand for(a) social rented, (b) private rented, (c) part purchase/part rent, (d) other forms of managed partly-owned accommodation and (e) private market housing from (i) newly formed family units and (ii) first time occupiers and purchasers. [62617]

  Mr. McNulty
  This Government do not produce national assessments of housing demand or targets for house building. Annual rates of housing provision to be kept under regular review are established through regional planning guidance and the spatial strategy it sets out. The strategy is prepared having regard to a number of matters including regional economic needs, the household projections produced by the ODPM, the capacity of urban areas to accommodate more housing, the physical and social infrastructure needed to support additional housing and the environmental implications of doing so.

  Second Homes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the extent of(a) central Government and (b) local government finance employed to subsidise the costs of the council tax rebate for (i) second homes and (ii) other residential properties entitled to a council tax discount or rebate for each of the past five years for which records are available; [62618]

  (2) what level of (a) central Government and (b) local government moneys have been used to provide the necessary subsidy for the delivery of the council tax rebate for (i) second homes and (ii) all other residential properties entitled to a council tax discount rebate in each of the past five years for which records are available in (A) each of the six districts of Cornwall, (B) Cornwall county and (C) the council of the Isles of Scilly. [62619]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are compensated through revenue support grant paid by central Government for council tax income foregone as a result of dwellings in their area being entitled to council tax discounts.

  The total council tax income foregone in respect of second homes is estimated at £80 million for England in 2001–02. Information for individual local authorities is not centrally available. Further work is being done to calculate the total council tax income foregone as a result of 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. discounts and I will write with further details when this has been completed.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements he is making for the consideration of local authorities' objections to the provisional financial settlement for 2003–04. [62345]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will announce the arrangements for the 2003–04 provisional local government finance settlement in the autumn, following the consultation on options for the new system over the summer.

  Planning
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many requests were made, broken down by
  307W
  Government office region, for planning applications to be called in for the last year for which figures are available; and, for each region, how many were called in. [62580]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of requests to call in planning applications is not recorded. The number of planning applications called-in within each Government office region between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002 is as follows.

  Government office

  Called-in

  North-east

  11

  North-west

  14

  Yor shire and the Humber

  13

  West Midlands

  23

  East Midlands

  16

  East

  7

  South-west

  12

  South-east

  22

  London

  4

  Total

  122

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken to increase the number of homes for homeless single mothers. [61904]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under current legislation, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide accommodation for people who are homeless through not fault of their own and who have a priority need for accommodation. The priority need categories include households with dependent children or a pregnant woman.

  The Government are committed to ensuring homeless families are provided with decent housing. The supply of affordable housing has a vital role to play in increasing the homes available to house homeless single mothers. The Government have raised investment in affordable housing through the Housing Corporation to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04, almost double 2000–01 levels. In 2000–01, the Corporation approved schemes to the value of £4.5 million for vulnerable mothers with babies and £418 million for homeless people. In addition, where a single mother has a support need that makes it difficult to sustain a tenancy, the Supporting People programme, to be launched in April 2003, will help prevent tenancy breakdown.

  In March this year the Government announced a new approach to tackling homelessness backed by £125 million. This includes ensuring that no homeless families with children have to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation except in an emergency.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless shelters in major cities serve free meals. [61905]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information relating to the number of homeless shelters in major cities which serve free meals is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Evictions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken to restrict the power of landlords to evict renters with little or no notice. [61906]

  Mr. McNulty
  For most tenancies landlords must give two months notice to end a let. If the tenant does not leave, repossession of the property involves a court order enforced by bailiffs. It is not for a landlord to carry out an eviction.

  Local authorities have powers to investigate any complaints of illegal eviction and to caution or prosecute as appropriate. The then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions published the research report "Harassment and Unlawful Eviction of Private Rented Sector Tenants and Park Home Residents" in 2000. At the same time separate guidance to local authorities was published. Copies of both documents are available in the House Library.

  Cornish Language
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evidence he has collated that supports the conclusion that Cornish is not an appropriate language to be specified for the purposes of the European Charter for regional or minority languages. [62648]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I look forward to receiving the Government office for the south-west's report and supporting evidence, which will inform the Government's decision on whether or not Cornish meets the charter's definition of a regional or minority language.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total c st was of sending out the literature from the Standards Board to all parish councils; and if he will make a statement. [62650]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In May 2002, the Standards Board for England sent copies of guidance on the operation of new codes of conduct to all local authorities within its remit, including parish councils. The total cost of this guidance, including the costs of despatch, was £188,380, some 80 per cent. of which it is estimated relates to providing the material to the 8,500 parish councils in England. This indicates an average cost of a little under £18 per parish council.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by his Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62824]

  Mr. Leslie
  There have been no occasions.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for allowing 18-year-olds to stand for election to local councils. [62689]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no current plans to allow 18-year-olds to stand for election to local councils.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58975]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows.

  Percentage

  Date

  Named day question answered on the nominated day

  Ordinary written question answered within a week of being tabled

  2001

  June

  60

  0

  July

  85

  63

  October

  63

  48

  November

  73

  47

  December

  100

  54

  2002

  January

  53

  27

  February

  65

  27

  March

  36

  27

  April

  37

  20

  May

  52

  33

  Public Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the statutes which require public bodies to make reports to Parliament. [59749]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office is compiling this information and I shall write to my hon. Friend once it has been collated.

  SCOTLAND
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact on Scotland if the United Kingdom joined the euro. [58657]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor in October 1997, and restated by the Prime Minister in 1999. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made. The Government have said that the Treasury will complete an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The five tests will assess the economic case for entry of the whole of the UK, including Scotland.

  SCOTLAND

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to make Scottish companies aware of the business opportunities presented by the enlargement of the European Union. [45786]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I take every opportunity to outline the opportunities for Scottish business which are presented by EU enlargement. I also work with organisations such as CBI Scotland and Scottish Council for Development and Industry in their work in promoting these opp rtunities. Together with the DTI, the Scotland Office is anxious to encourage maximum benefit for Scotland from enlargement of the EU.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers there were in her Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46954]
    310W
    Mrs. Liddell
    [holding answer 10 April 2002]: There are two special advisers in my Department. On salaries, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

    Clydesdale Bank
    Mr. Sarwar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she will take to protect Clydesdale bank staff whose jobs are threatened by plans to cut the European work force of National Australia bank [50515]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I am aware of concerns about the National Australia bank's announcement that it expects to cut 500 jobs across its European operations and the potential impact on the group's Clydesdale bank operations in Scotland. I hope to meet shortly with senior management of the bank to discuss their future plans for their operations in Scotland.

    Pensions
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57359]

    Mrs. Liddell
    [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the former Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 561W.

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many times her Office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999 broken down by(a) department approached, (b) subject and (c) date; [59533]
  311W
  (2) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to her Department since May 1999 broken down by (a) Scottish Executive department, (b) subject and (c) date. [59532]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information is not held in the form requested. There are frequent communications, many of them informal, between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive, both at ministerial and at official level.

  Reserved Powers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to seek the transfer of the administration of reserved powers or functions of UK Government Departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within their remit from those departments to the Scotland Office. [59531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None.

  Postal and Electronic Voting
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans her Department has to consult on the use of postal and electronic voting in future elections. [58883]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Local government election pilots in Scotland, England and Wales are currently being evaluated by local authorities and the Electoral Commission. Proposals on any changes to the electoral system will take the results of these and any other pilots into account.

  Young People
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations representing young people her Department regularly consults. [58882]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Although the Scotland Office has meetings with a wide range of representative bodies, my right hon. Friend rarely has need to consult formally. However, she launched an exercise in December last year seeking views on the size of the Scottish Parliament. Youthlink Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament were among the bodies consulted.

  Budget
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what input she has into the findings and presentation of Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland prior to its publication; [59379]

  (2) how much it cost the Government to produce the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland report in each year since its inception; [59378]

  (3) what Ministers have an opportunity to view and comment on Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland prior to its publication; [59380]

  (4) if work has begun on Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland for 2000–01. [59381]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) reports are produced by the Scottish Executive. The report draws on information produced by HM Treasury, Inland Revenue and Customs 312W
  and Excise and the Office of National Statistics. Since 1999 publication of the reports has been announced in a joint Scottish Executive/Scotland Office news release. Advance copies of the final text of the GERS report are available to Ministers from the Scotland Office, Treasury and Scottish Executive. The timetable for the Scottish Executive's work on the 2000–01 report is a matter for the Scottish Executive as are the production costs, but I understand that the total cost of printing, publishing and distributing the GERS report for 1999–2000 was £6,200. Details of costs for the earlier years are not readily available.

  Gas Pipelines
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the differential levels of taxation for different gas pipelines within Scotland and England. [58892]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to her Department; and what assistance is given by officials in her Department to them in carrying out these duties; [59987]

  (2) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to her Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59974]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  Animal Transportation Directive
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact on the Scottish livestock industry of the proposed EU directive on animal transportation. [59665]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Animal welfare is a devolved subject within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Executive.

  EU Driving Regulations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact on the livestock industry in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland of the proposed EU regulations on drivers' hours. [59677]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Responsibility for the regulation of drivers' hours in Great Britain rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The previous Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions carried out an extensive public consultation exercise on the proposal in question as part of its assessment of the likely impact on British industry. The National Farmers' Union Scotland was among the bodies consulted.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of(a) Legalise Cannabis Campaign Scotland, (b) Amnesty International, (c) Scottish Human Rights Centre, (d) Unison Scotland, (e) WWF Scotland, (f) Cancer Research Campaign Scotland, (g) National Asthma Campaign Scotland, (h) Transform Scotland, (i) Charter 88 Scotland, (j) Equality Network, (k) BDA Scotland, (l) Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (m) Capital Rail Action Group, (n) Children 1, (o) Help the Aged Scotland, (p) Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, (q) Ash Scotland, (r) Shelter Scotland, (s) Church of Scotland, (t) Scottish Trades Union Congress, (u) Friends of the Earth Scotland, (v) Scottish Refugee Council, (w) Age Concern Scotland, (x) Equal Opportunities Commission, Scotland and (y) Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; what was discussed; and what future plans she has to meet them. [60785]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I regularly meet representatives from a wide range of organisations, including some of those listed by the hon. Member, and discuss an appropriately wide range of issues with them.

WALES

  Local Government
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what responsibility he has for amendments to electoral law in relation to local government in Wales. [62852]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Policy on electoral law in relation to local government elections in Wales and England is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60464]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department's targets are set out in its service delivery agreement (published in November 2000 and available at http://www.walesoffice.gov.uk/2000/news2000.html) and in its departmental report (Cm 5121). They are monitored internally and reported on in the departmental report.

  Regulations (Cost-effectiveness)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Children's Homes Amendment (Wales) Regulations; [60996]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Pig Industry Restructuring Grant (Wales) Scheme. [60979]
  314W
  (3) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Financing of Maintained Schools (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [60988]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 4) Order; [60953]

  (5) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (No. 3) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [60957]

  (6) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ascertainment of Value) (Wales) (No. 2) Order; [60961]

  (7) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Community Charges, Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Enforcement) (Magistrates' Courts) (Wales) Regulations; [60965]

  (8) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (Wales); [60975]

  (9) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Local Education Authority (Behaviour Support Plans) (Amendment) (Wales); [60983]

  (10) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Feeding Stuffs (Wales) Regulations; [60992]

  (11) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Education (Education Standards Grants) (Wales) Regulations; [60971]

  (12) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost effectiveness of the Education (National Curriculum) (Key Stage 3 Assessment Arrangements) (Wales) (Amendment) Order; [60973]

  (13) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) (Wales) Order; [60981]

  (14) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Organic Farming Scheme (Wales) Regulations; [60990]

  (15) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (Wales) Order; [60955]

  (16) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Tir Mynydd (Cross-Border Holdings) (Wales) Regulations; [60959]

  (17) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (School Information) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [60963]

  (18) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Professions Supplementary to Medicine) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [60967]
  315W
  (19) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot and Mouth Disease) (Wales) Regulations; [60977]

  (20) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Highways Noise Payments (Movable Homes) (Wales) Regulations; [60985]

  (21) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the School Milk (Wales) Regulations; [60994]

  (22) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Individual Pupils' Achievements) (Information) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [60972]

  (23) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Diseases of Animals (Approved Disinf ctants) (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [60980]

  (24) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the National Park Authorities Levies (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [60989]

  (25) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Food Irradiation Provisions (Wales) Regulations; [60954]

  (26) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot and Mouth Disease (Ascertainment of Value) (Wales) (No. 3) Order; [60958]

  (27) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot and Mouth Disease (Ascertainment of Value) (Wales) Order; [60962]

  (28) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Pupil Registration) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations: [60966]

  (29) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot and Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 3) Order; [60970]

  (30) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Pupil Records) (Wales) Regulations; [60976]

  (31) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [60993]

  (32) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (No. 3) Regulations; [60968]

  (33) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No. 1) (Wales) Order; [60995]

  (34) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot and Mouth Disease) (No. 2) (Wales) Order; [60974]
  316W
  (35) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Homeless Persons (Priority Need) (Wales) Order; [60982]

  (36) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Tir Sofal (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [60991]

  (37) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Tir Mynydd (Wales) Regulations; [60987]

  (38) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Non Domestic Rating (Alterations of Lists and Appeals) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [60956]

  (39) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Trusts (Cardiff and Vale National Health Service Trust) (Originating Capital) (Wales) Order; [60960]

  (40) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the School Governors' Annual reports (Wales) Regulations; [60964]

  (41) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot and Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) No. 2 Order; [60978]

  (42) what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Alteration of Requisite Calculations) (Wales) Regulations. [60986]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  These are matters for the National Assembly for Wales. Section 65 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 provides for an appraisal of the costs and benefits of complying with Assembly general subordinate legislation to be carried out before a draft of the statutory instrument is laid before the Assembly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) co nections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61836]

  Mr. Alexander
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61655]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office did not hold a Christmas party for its staff in 2001.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61035]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2001–02 was £402.8 million. Approximately 40 per cent. of the DEL was for budgeted staff costs. The 2001–02 Resource account is undergoing final adjustments and awaiting audit. As a result, the percentage figure quoted may change.

  The information regarding how much and what proportion of the DEL for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs is not yet available.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61046]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62212]

  Mr. Alexander
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  As with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61641]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards deliver of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used, in its departmental r port.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister whether civil servants involved in providing preparatory material for him in advance of Prime Minister's Question Time supply information relating to(a) the previous Conservative Government and (b) alternative policies held by opposition parties. [62662]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1268–1269W. Briefing is provided in accordance with the Ministerial and Civil Service Code.

TREASURY

  Forward Tax Payment Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many(a) income tax payers and (b) corporation tax payers have negotiated forward tax payment contracts with the Inland Revenue. [59873]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following a review by the Inland Revenue, 15 such cases were identified. The majority of these cases are no longer current, and the remainder are under review in the light of a recent court judgment. All the agreements primarily concerned individuals but in five cases provision was made for companies considered to be under their control.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken on enforcement of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [62155]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has two specialist teams, one based in Aberdeen, the other in East Kilbride who are responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage in Scotland. Since April 1999 the two teams have completed over 1,700 investigations in Scotland, recovering over £627,000 in wage arrears.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61653]

  Ruth Kelly
  There was no departmental Christmas party. Treasury Christmas parties tend to be held on a team or directorate basis.

  HIPC Initiative
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the UK Government plan to make to the estimated shortfall in funding for the HIPC initiative; from which departmental budget contributions will come; and whether contributions will be made(a) directly and (b) through the EU, IDA or other institutions. [61998]

  John Healey
  Total bilateral pledges to the HIPC trust fund currently total more than US$2.5 billion. However, current estimates of the funding requirements for countries expected to be eligible for HIPC relief in the
  319W
  near term suggest a possible shortfall of $700 million. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session the Chancellor called for a $1 billion contribution from richer countries to support the HIPC initiative. At present the UK is the second largest contributor to the trust fund and has pledged a total of $306 million. Of that total $221 million was paid directly by the Department for International Development (DfID) to the World bank with the remaining $85 million representing the UK share of a European Union contribution of $661 million in total.

  Debt Relief
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to support(a) Guinea-Bissau's and (b) Guinea's IMF debt relief programme. [62149]

  John Healey
  As highly indebted poor countries (HIPCs) both Guinea-Bissau and Guinea are eligible f r debt relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative. In December 2000 both countries reached Decision Point under the initiative and qualified for interim debt relief on any payments due. For its part the UK goes further than is required under the HIPC initiative and provides 100 per cent. debt relief. The UK Government are working with other donors, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help both countries reach Completion Point under the HIPC initiative, at which point their debts will be irrevocably cancelled. To reach this point these countries will need to have demonstrated a clear commitment to poverty reduction and how their country-owned poverty reduction strategies will be able to use the resources released by debt relief to reduce poverty. The IMF and World bank estimate that Guinea-Bissau and Guinea could reach Completion Point as early as October 2003 and December 2002 respectively.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the budget of the Portsmouth Inland Revenue Contact Centre was in each of the last five financial years. [62622]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Portsmouth Contact Centre was opened on 6 November 2001, therefore the 2001–02 budget allocated to the site was for the period November 2001 to March 2002. The budgets for the two years to date are as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Paybill

  0.8

  3.14

  Other running costs

  0.15

  0.3

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance measures there are at Inland Revenue call centres; if they are being met; and if he will make a statement. [62621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The IRCC target to have no more than 5 per cent. of calls engaged and no more than 5 per cent. abandoned, with 90 per cent. of the balance answered in 20 seconds. Some of the new taxpayer sites have faced call volumes well above those predicted.
  320W
  For the year ended March 2002, including the new sites, the overall achievement for all lines of business covered by contact centres and helplines was:

  41 per cent. engaged

  6 per cent. abandoned

  59 per cent. answered within 20 seconds.

  A number of issues are being addressed in particular:
  ensuring that there are the right number of advisers to match call volumes;
  working with service offices to see if other changes can be made to reduce call volumes and sharing best practice from larger established sites where service level targets are being met.

  This, together with greater staff experience, has allowed substantial improvements in performance. For example, the Longbenton Contact Centre (which offers a national insurance service) has reduced engaged tones to a sixth of the level 12 months ago, while answering 90 per cent. of calls in 20 seconds.

  The experimental call centre, which opened in East Kilbride, suffered similar variable service levels. The centre has since demonstrated that the processes are sound, achieving for example, a service level for the year ended March 2002 of:

  4 per cent. engaged

  2 per cent. abandoned

  91 per cent. answered within 20 seconds.

  Third-world Debt
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to cancel debt owing to the UK by Uganda. [62354]

  John Healey
  There is no longer any debt owing to the UK Government by Uganda. As a highly indebted poor country (HIPC) Uganda was eligible for debt relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative; for its part the UK goes further than is required and provides 100 per cent. debt elief to all qualifying countries such as Uganda. In February 2000 Uganda reached decision point under that initiative and qualified for interim debt relief on payments due, and in May 2000 Uganda reached completion point and its debts were irrevocably cancelled.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 4 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [62929]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 4 June.

  ECOFIN had an orientation discussion on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. These will be considered further at the ECOFIN meeting on 20 June prior to the Seville European Council.

  The Council noted that a qualified majority existed on a presidency compromise text on the occupational pensions directive.

  ECOFIN also had an orientation discussion on the draft directive on prospectuses, and the Commission presented its sixth half-yearly progress report on the Financial Services Action Plan.
  321W
  ECOFIN adopted conclusions on the tax package. I reported on the significant progress the UK has made in discussions with our overseas and dependent territories on taxation of savings, which was welcomed by the Council. The Commission gave an oral update on progress on negotiations with third countries. ECOFIN called for greater progress to be made, and a presidency letter to the Swiss President was agreed.

  Presidency guidelines on energy taxation were discussed. These were discussed further by the High Level Group (HLG) on Energy Taxation on 11 June, and the chairman of the HLG will report back to ECOFIN on 20 June.

  There was a conciliation meeting with the European Parliament to examine the remaining outstanding items on the recasting of the financial regulation. Agreement was reached on the draft text.

  ECOFIN discussed the VAT treatment of cross-border motor vehicle leasing, and invited the presidency and the Commission to examine the situation and report at the end of 2002.

  The Council noted a preliminary oral report on issues of corporate governance by Professor Winter (Chairman of the High Level Group on Company Law).

  ECOFIN also adopted texts on the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development and on the implementation of the new EIB Euro-Mediterranean Facility.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the 2002 Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting. [63191]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK will host the 2002 Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting (CFMM) from 24–26 September. This is an annual event whose timing is intended to provide Finance Ministers with an opportunity to prepare for the annual meetings of the IMF and World bank.

  The overall theme of the 2002 CFMM is "Stability; Growth; Poverty Reduction". Within this theme, Finance Ministers will discuss the world economy, IMF/World bank issues and Commonwealth issues.

  They will also discuss the special theme which this year will be "Delivering the Monterrey Consensus". The International Conference on Financing for Development took place in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002. The resulting 'Monterrey Consensus' achieved a significant breakthrough by recognising the mutual responsibilities of both donors and developing countries to advance the development process. But to impact on the lives of the poor, these commitments require effective follow-up. The aim of the special theme session is therefore to develop an action plan for Commonwealth Finance Ministers to take forward the Monterrey Conclusions.

  Prior to the ministerial meetings, senior officials only will discuss a technical th me. This year, the technical theme will be "Managing Resources for Development" and include such issues as budgetary systems and public expenditure management.
  322W
  At the Chancellor's request, the 2002 CFMM will be the first to engage civil society, whose views will be sought on the special theme. The Commonwealth Foundation is facilitating this process. After an initial introductory meeting in Monterrey, a number of regional civil society consultations are planned. The first has already taken place in Ghana. Further consultations are scheduled for Jamaica, Fiji, Bangladesh and the UK. The outputs of these consultations will then be combined into a single paper at a larger civil society event in London in July. This paper will be presented to Finance Ministers at CFMM.

  The UK is hosting the 2002 CFMM to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee year. In recognition of this, Her Majesty will open the meetings on 24 September.

  In addition, there will be a number of events taking place in the margins of the ministerial sessions:
  An exhibition of UK/Commonwealth links in 2002 will run over the three days of CFMM. Exhibits are planned to cover the Commonwealth games, the Spirit of Friendship Festival and the Golden Jubilee celebrations;
  an evening event to showcase the diversity of the Commonwealth;
  a business forum immediately prior to the CFMM (23–24 September). This is being organised by the Commonwealth Business Council and will include a pre-conference dinner at the Guildhall.

  To help ensure that Commonwealth citizens have access to information about the CFMM and that preparations for the meeting are as transparent as possible, a CFMM website has been established (www.cfmm2002.org). The site has been designed to give people across the Commonwealth quick access to information about both the policy aims and logistics of CFMM.

  The website design takes into account potential technological limitations that may affect many developing Commonwealth countries. It is simple, easy to navigate and has a fast download speed.

  World Debt
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total costs to the Exchequer of the recent UK developing world debt cancellation, as announced since 1 May 1997, in each year from 1997–98 to 2020–21; and if he will make a statement. [62392]

  John Healey
  Prior to 1 May 1997 the UK had already cancelled its aid loans to all the poorest countries and payments are written off as they become due. Remaining debts are owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). The original highly indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative was launched in October 1996 and in 1999 the UK was at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief in helping to secure agreement for the enhanced HIPC initiative. In December 1999, the UK Government announced that we would provide 100 per cent. debt relief on all ECGD debt for qualifying HIPCs to free up more resources for poverty reduction. The table sets out, by country and calendar year, all developing country debts to ECGD that have been written off since May 1997.

  Some countries have benefited from both the original and the enhanced HIPC initiative but figures on the exact attribution between each initiative are not readily available. The total future costs to the Exchequer of debt

  323W
  relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative will depend upon the progress of the remaining countries towards decision point, when they begin to receive interim debt relief on any payments due, and the subsequent completion point when debts are irrevocably cancelled.

  Developing country debts to ECGD written off since 1 May 1997

  £ million1

  19972

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Bolivia

  0.00

  6.49

  0.00

  0.00

  12.31

  Bosnia

  0.00

  3.22

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Cameroon

  4.74

  2.71

  3.15

  5.06

  9.17

  Central African Republic

  0.00

  0.16

  0.04

  0.03

  0.01

  Cote D'Ivoire

  1.14

  2.82

  1.17

  0.00

  0.00

  Egypt

  2.35

  0.98

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Ethiopia

  0.00

  0.00

  0.29

  0.52

  0.23

  Guinea Republic

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.12

  0.52

  Guyana

  0.00

  0.00

  12.50

  0.00

  0.00

  Madagascar

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.19

  1.30

  Malawi

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.10

  Mauritania

  0.11

  0.05

  0.66

  0.53

  0.53

  Mozambique

  3.63

  5.39

  12.45

  0.00

  78.54

  Niger

  0.21

  0.31

  0.34

  0.72

  1.23

  Senegal

  0.00

  1.53

  0.00

  0.02

  0.05

  Tanzania

  1.98

  4.62

  5.57

  18.14

  15.12

  Togo

  0.48

  0.29

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Uganda

  0.00

  8.68

  0.00

  5.96

  0.00

  Zambia

  0.00

  0.00

  20.74

  16.87

  15.94

  Totals

  14.64

  37.24

  56.91

  48.13

  135.04

  1Amounts written off.

  2From 1 May 1997 onwards.

  Mr. Romano Prodi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met Mr. Romano Prodi; and if he will make a statement. [62189]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I meet Mr. Prodi regularly at meetings of Europan Councils.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Customs and Indirect Taxation is; how many times it has me over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [61700]

  John Healey
  There is no record of the existence of an Advisory Committee on Customs and Indirect Taxation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the mandate of the EEC-Hong Kong Customs Co-operation Sub Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration: if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement; [61730]
  324W
  (2) what the mandate of the EEC-United States of America Customs Co-operation Sub Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement; [61733]

  (3) what the mandate of the EEC-Israel Customs Co-operation Sub Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement; [61732]

  (4) what the mandate of the EEC-Mexico Special Committee on Customs Co-operation is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [61731]

  John Healey
  All of the committees listed below have been set up by the Council in accordance with obligations under agreements between the EC and the third country or economic grouping in question:

  EEC-Israel Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee

  EEC-Hong Kong Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee

  EEC-United States of America Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee

  EEC-Mexico Special Committee on Customs Co-operation.

  They normally meet annually (one year Brussels, the following year in the subject country). Their aim is to maintain co-operation agreements in the customs field, particularly in exchanging information. The agenda for these meetings is broad—any part of the agreements being potentially included.

  HM Customs attends preparatory Council meetings (approximately six per year) which co-ordinate, as part of a wide-ranging agenda, for the bilateral EC/third country committee meetings. Travel expenses for two officials are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70). HM Customs officials do not normally attend the bilateral meetings. In the Customs area, the EC has exclusive competence and leads in the bilateral meetings, normally accompanied by the member state holding the presidency. If, exceptionally, there is a point of direct interest to the UK, representatives from the Permanent Representation in Brussels would attend the meeting.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament are ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process. Prior to agreement at the various Councils (ECOFIN, JHA, GAC), documents are submitted to Parliament along with Explanatory Memoranda and are examined by the European scrutiny committees.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Further Education: Funding
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
When convergence of funding, salaries and status of further education colleges and schools might take place.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government place equal value on the vital contributions both colleges and schools make to the delivery of our educational agenda. There is no deadline for convergence of funding levels between colleges and schools. We are committed to increasing funding for colleges. But noble Lords will appreciate that we cannot commit ourselves beyond the resources we secure. Each college agrees pay and conditions with its staff in the context of its overall resources.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no argument about the need to close the gap between further education and school sixth forms? Is he aware that funding for pupils in school sixth forms is 10 per cent higher than it is in further education colleges, and that the pay of further education lecturers is around £;2,000 less per year than it is for teachers who do the same work in sixth forms? While I acknowledge that the Government have made an improvement in the situation, cannot my noble friend say, in spite of his initial Answer, when they expect the complete or near-complete removal of what in fact is a glaring anomaly between the two sectors in education?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, without being able to confirm precisely the figures identified by my noble friend, I recognise the validity of his position; namely, that a funding gap exists between colleges and schools. He will know that we are doing our best to address that. He will recognise also that the increase in funding for further education since this Government came to power is 26 per cent. So we are making progress. However, the gap still remains and we will make progress as far as resources allow.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would it help the Government to know that although further education is a splendid aim for the whole of the country, the need for it varies from time to time and from place to place?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, variations in demand certainly exist; that is why some colleges expand faster than others. But it is the case, well
616
attested, that this nation is under-educated and under-trained. Further education has a crucial role to play in filling that gap and that is why additional resources are necessary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister recognises that there is a gap between further education and sixth form funding. Difficulties arise with sixth form funding at this moment. Given that the noble Lord said that the Government are addressing the gap problem, can he say whether it will he a levelling down to further education levels or a levelling up to sixth form levels? Schools with sixth forms have been promised that there will be no reduction of funding.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, when did this Government ever level down in respect of education? Of course we intend to level up. Part of the problem is that, whereas we have devoted 26 per cent of extra resources to further education, in the 1990s, under a previous administration, there was a 12 per cent cut in real terms for further education.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how the Government have been monitoring the funding of further education since the Learning and Skills Council took over? I declare an interest as a governor at a further education college. This college was once a sixth-form college under the local authority; it then moved to the previous funding regime and now comes under the Learning and Skills Council. Our experience tells us that the amount of bureaucracy involved is far greater now even than under the local authority. I shall be grateful to know what feedback the Government are getting on this issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that the development of the Learning and Skills Council enables us to evaluate the quality and performance of trainers and educators across the further education sector and in the world of employment. It is true that the Learning and Schools Council has only been in existence for 18 months and will take some time to settle down with regard to its arrangements. Each local body has its specific responsibilities. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the controls and reporting mechanisms of the council are at least as stringent as anything we have ever had before for further education.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as we are spending so much on education, which is a very good thing, does the Minister think that it might be possible to persuade people not to use such terrible expressions as, "delivering an educational agenda"?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl has not just caught me out in using that phrase. We are all guilty at times of using jargon. I accept his rebuke and will pass on to others the importance of communicating the vital matter of the priority of education in our national life in intelligent and appropriate ways.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the funding gap between salaries

617
in school sixth forms and further education colleges is causing a considerable recruitment difficulty for further education colleges? He is right that they play a vital part in providing education in this country, but they will not be able to go on doing so unless the salary gap is closed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that sixth-form colleges are of importance in "delivering the educational agenda". It did not take me long. I think that she recognises that sixth-form colleges have an important role to play. We recognise that a gap exists. I recognised that in my Answer to my noble friend's original Question. We are doing our best to fill the gap because, as the noble Baroness rightly indicated, it is important that we sustain recruitment to sixth-form colleges as well as to other areas of education.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend has just said that there has been a 26 per cent increase in funding for further education. Can I assume that he means over the six years since the Government have been in power? If so, and if my arithmetic is correct, that means that it will take another 18 years before the levelling-up comes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, no, the figure 1 sought to identify was the increase in total funding devoted to further education based on the year 1997 when we came to power and the 26 per cent increase in real terms since then. I frankly acknowledge to my noble friend, and of course to the House, that there is still a gap in provision between further education and schools. We intend to seek, as best we can, additional resources to close that gap as early as we can.

Iraq
2.44 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the need for explicit authority by the United Nations Security Council for any military action against Iraq.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, as we have always made clear, any military action that the UK undertakes anywhere in the world will be carried out in accordance with international law.
No decision has been taken on military action against Iraq. Iraq's obligations are unambiguously set out in the relevant Security Council resolutions; and Iraq is clearly in breach of them.
We do not rule out the need to take further military action in future. Whether explicit authorisation by the United Nations Security Council is needed would depend on the circumstances at the time.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that it would be unfortunate to alienate any sections of world opinion—upon which we would be very dependent for success in anything we tried to do—by the way in which we take action and by failure to consult fully? Is not the point about "explicit"—as distinct from "implicit"—Security Council endorsement for any action, the fact that it represents worldwide broad support for what is being done? To contemplate action in this grave situation without such worldwide support could be hazardous and counterproductive.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that I made it absolutely clear in my original reply that any military action that we undertake anywhere in the world is carried out in accordance with international law. That remains the position. Yes, I think that it is important that there is worldwide broad support. We saw that worldwide support following September 11th and the action that was taken in Afghanistan. We shall continue to consult with our international partners in the way that we have always done.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government regard as still in force the Security Council's resolutions passed more than 10 years ago after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? And, after September 11th, have the Government sought agreement within the council on action over Iraq's harbouring of international terrorists?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there have been a number of Security Council resolutions in relation to Iraq. Many are several years old, as the noble Lord has noted. We consider that those resolutions are still in place. We continue to discuss with our international colleagues our concerns about the situation in Iraq. We shall continue to do that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from collective action in pursuance of a Security Council resolution, the use of armed force across an international frontier is only permissible in self-defence under Article 51 or in accordance with the new principles in international law developed in the case of Kosovo to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian disaster?
Was the action taken in Iraq under Desert Fox a matter of self-defence? Does the noble Baroness agree that, since the Security Council never endorsed that operation, it cannot be said to have approved it and that we should go back to the Security Council if we intend to embark on any further military operations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in general terms, we would regard a use of force against Iraq, or indeed any other state, as lawful if it is authorised by the United Nations Security Council or was in exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence

619
or, exceptionally, was carried out in order to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Those are the bases used.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to take that discussion a little further. Does she agree that there is no doubt whatever about the legitimacy in international law of self-defence and the inclusion in that concept of the notion of deterrence? There is no doubt whatever about the concept of pre-emptive intelligence. I welcome the additional resources made available for that in the light of the recommendations by our own Intelligence and Security Committee.
On the other hand, does she recognise that the concept of pre-emptive retaliation, which has been canvassed in some quarters, raises very different questions—questions of extreme difficulty—which require the utmost care and consideration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recognise that over the last couple of days there has been much in the press about the issue of pre-emptive retaliation. That has been widely reported. It is important that we recognise that at this stage, those are press reports and we need to be careful about how we interpret them. I entirely agree with the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, with respect to legitimacy and preemptive intelligence.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, bearing in mind the wise remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, is it not important to distinguish between pre-emptive action necessary to prevent another September 11th—it is too late if we wait until afterwards—and a pre-emptive strike with nuclear weapons, which raises different and much more serious issues?
Saddam Hussein has, after all, been responsible for the starvation and killing of tens of thousands of women and children and has, indeed, gassed his own people. Does the Minister agree that in the name of common humanity, the case for a regime change, to use the American phrase, in Iraq is very strong indeed? To what extent has there been dialogue with the Americans recently about their latest plans to tackle that? What dialogue have we had with Iraqi resistance and exile groups such as the Iraqi National Congress? Have we also encouraged them in the general move to get rid of Saddam?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know, because it has been widely discussed in this House, that there is a view that regime change is important in Iraq because without regime change, we will not have the kind of leadership there that will work for the people of Iraq. Having said that, it is important to recognise that we are in constant dialogue with our international partners, including the Americans. That dialogue will continue. We are discussing serious issues here; we are well aware of that. We shall continue to discuss with and consult our allies and others and we shall see where those discussions lead us.

National Air Traffic Services
2.52 p.m.
Lord Smith of Cliftonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they intend to do to improve the technical operation and to secure the financial viability of National Air Traffic Services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, technical issues are operational matters for National Air Traffic Services. NATS suffered a significant drop in revenues following the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001. The situation was addressed in March, when the Government and the banks agreed a short-term loan facility up to 30th September 2002. NATS is currently seeking discussions with a new private sector investor as part of a long-term solution. The Government intend to match an appropriate level of private sector investment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall that on 17th April, in reply to a similar Question asked by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated that all the parties involved,
"are making a contribution towards ensuring that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, 17/4/02; col. 942.]?
Since then, a further £65 million subsidy has been promised by the Government. What is the total paid out by the Government since privatisation of NATS? When will it end? The not-for-profit company, with all the much-vaunted private sector management techniques that it was to bring, has turned out to be an always-loss-making outfit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find a number of curious elements in that question. I said that we matched a short-term loan facility of £30 million in March of this year. During NATS's evidence to the Transport Select Committee last week, it became clear that the proposed private bidder for an additional contribution to NATS was the British Airports Authority and that it was discussing a contribution of between £50 million and £65 million. In my Answer, I said that we are prepared to match that. I see nothing contradictory between that and what my noble friend Lord Filkin said earlier.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, like others around the world, the United Kingdom Government continue to assist airlines with their insurance burden as a result of the events of 11th September? Can he explain why the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator in this case, does not believe that a similar role should be played to help NATS to cope with the financial consequences of that appalling and unprecedented event?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two questions there. The first is the question of support

621
for insurance cover, which is a responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is independent. As my noble friend knows, it has been providing that support.
On the second point, I assume that he is referring to the application for price increases. In the consultation paper issued on 21st May, the CAA expressed the view that NATS is a sound business and that the public/ private partnership is working but needs financial strengthening. It has made suggestions and sought views on ways in which price changes could take place that would not simply be to correct deficiencies in the balance sheet—for example, proposals for a floor and ceiling on volumes of traffic. The consultation ends on Friday and no doubt the CAA will announce its conclusions in due course.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, has the Minister noted the comments this morning about some of the cheaper airlines sacrificing safety for their own financial advantage? Does that have any bearing on this Question and does he have any comment to make about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have a personal comment to make as one who returned from France by Ryanair yesterday morning. The turnaround was certainly very sharp between the arrival at Stansted and the return. But beyond that, no, that is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and the industry's safety regulator. I should note that in the first five months of this year only one near miss was recorded, in comparison with five, six or seven in previous years.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that there is time for both speakers, so perhaps we can start with our side and then hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Airports Authority has expressed concern about the attitude of the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, towards NATS?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I am not aware that the British Airports Authority has expressed concern about the attitude of the Civil Aviation Authority. That would sound to me like a threat of civil war in due course.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that the impending 21 per cent cut in staff at NATS will impinge on future safety? Does he think that that will inhibit the future development of technology in that much-needed area?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, over-generalises. There is no
622
suggestion of any cut in air traffic control staff. Indeed, recruitment continues at the level of 140 recruits a year, which is sufficient to deal with existing traffic and predicted traffic increases. There is a possibility of cuts in support staff, but that arises from changes in the move to Swanwick and in the operations that are required to be carried out at Swanwick. None of that involves any risk to safety.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble Lord regret that his Government gave up his party's policy that air traffic control was not for sale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to drive a wedge between myself and my Government is appropriate.

House of Lords Business Plan
3 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked the Chairman of Committees:
Further to the Fifth Report of the House of Lords' Offices Committee, when he expects the proposed board of management to publish the business plan.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, noble Lords will remember that the report of the Offices Committee which proposed the creation of the new House Committee suggested that it would approve a business plan prepared by the management board. The House Committee will not be established until the start of the next Session of Parliament and therefore it is too early to say when the business plan will be published. However, the Clerk of the Parliaments is chairing a management board which will come into being in October. I would expect the board to treat the preparatory work with a high priority.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord and his Committee on an excellent report, which I am glad to see was prepared without the use of a paid consultant. The business plan is a crucial part of that report. It states that it will be the responsibility of the Clerk of the Parliaments to be the chief executive. Does the Chairman of Committees agree that we are very fortunate in having an excellent Clerk of the Parliaments?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: However, my Lords, a few days' management training a year is hardly an appropriate way in which to prepare a chief executive to deal with the crucial job of spending more than £50 million a year—much less than the other place, but nevertheless an important job. Will the Chairman of Committees ensure that the new committee, when it is set up, will

623
consider relieving the present chief executive of that role so that he can concentrate on his main job in your Lordships' House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the nice things that he said about the report and the fact that we did not need an outside consultant. I agree with his remarks about the Clerk of the Parliaments, with whom I have the pleasure of working very closely on a day-to-day basis. As regards the large amounts of money, one has to bear in mind that a lot of that is dependent upon works expenditure and, dare I say it, upon Peers' expenses. So the controllable amount is much smaller than the noble Lord suggests.
He is correct—the Clerk of the Parliaments and his staff do have management training, but the new board will be assisted by a professional financial and management adviser, whose appointment for two years has recently been agreed. In that period of two years we shall have an opportunity to see whether the system is working and, if not, it will be up to the new House Committee to make other arrangements if it is not satisfied.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, the excellence of the report, in connection with the business plan I recall that the lowly chairmen of lowly committees will be consulted. Has the Chairman of Committees considered devolving budgets to the individual committees? Good business practice suggests that that is undoubtedly the way to get efficient outcomes in the use of resources. Speaking as a chairman, it is absurd that one constantly has to go back to Clerks to get permission to spend money on quite small things. If we are to go forward, of which we all strongly approve, it is about time that we adopted some modern business methods.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is an attractive suggestion that we should make the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a profit centre—or a centre of profit, perhaps. I hope—this comes out clearly in the report—that the new House Committee will, in the build-up to the budget, have much closer co-operation with the various chairmen of Select Committees than has been the case in the past. Building up the budget in that way, from the grass roots upwards, will satisfy the needs of the noble Lord, but I do not think that he will get a full budget of his own to play with.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees accept that many people outside the House would be amazed to learn that we have existed for more than 700 years and still have not got a fully qualified, full-time finance officer responsible for a very substantial budget and about 400 staff? The Select Committee report looks forward to further progress in this area. Is there any chance that that might be within the next 700 days or even the next 700 months?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that will depend on the efficiency and capability of the new
624
House Committee. We have put the responsibility very clearly on to that committee. It certainly will not take 700 years. I cannot promise that, but I shall not be here to answer for it when the time comes unless reincarnation is possible—and who would come here twice?
These matters are best left with the House Committee. It has a clear remit to come back to the House within a couple of years to report on how things are working. If it is not satisfied, other arrangements can be made. But, with the amounts of money that we have got and the capability that we have in management, I am fairly confident that we will succeed.

Adoption and. Children Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Adoption and Children Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 76,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 77 and 78,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 79 to 134,

Schedules 3 to 5,

Clauses 135 to 142,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 143 to 145.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. For those noble Lords who support the Bill and who are as inexperienced in the procedures of your Lordships' House as I am, this is good news rather than bad news. It means that the Bill will become law quicker than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Razzall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Employment Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 34 [Procedural fairness in unfair dismissal]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 39, line 8, after "1" insert "or 2"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the long wait from the first day of the Report stage after the recess, we now resume the long march through the Report stage of the Bill. In moving Amendment No. 91, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92.
The amendments are concerned with Clause 34 and, in particular, with subsection (2), which introduces the new Section 98A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The clause is much relied upon by the Government because it makes into an unfair dismissal any dismissal that does not satisfy the basic disciplinary procedures of Schedule 2, and, for all the criticisms of Schedule 2 on the second day of the Report stage—which noble Lords who were present will remember—that we welcome.
However, the clause—and particularly the subsection—has a rather murky and curious history. The form in which it now stands is not the form in which it began. In the first version of the Bill, printed in November 2001, the authors of the Bill in the Department of Trade and Industry protected an employer from a claim of unfair dismissal only where the employer had utilised the standard procedures of Part 1 of Schedule 2. They did not insert—or apparently forgot to insert—the new, modified procedures.
There was a case for that. Noble Lords will remember from our debates on Schedule 2 how unsatisfactory and uncertain are the modified procedures introduced into the Bill following the Government's first proposals in Routes to Resolution and other documents.
Ministers blamed the drafting for this omission. My honourable friend Alan Johnson, the responsible Minister, said in Committee in another place on 18th December that there had been a technical fault which had been pointed out by a Liberal Democrat amendment. His words were:
"Well spotted, as someone might recently have said at Athens airport".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee F, 18/12/02; col. 218.]
626
At Third Reading on 12th February, the modified procedures were inserted, so that the clause as it stands and the new section of the Employment Rights Act as it stands in the proposal now would protect an employer from a claim of unfair dismissal where he had satisfied either the standard procedures or the modified procedures of the disciplinary procedure.
But the Government's rethink on the form of the proposed new Section 98A did not go far enough. The reason is to be found in what can happen in real life, not merely in the design of the proposed new section. What happens in real life was described to the Government in Committee. I quote from paragraph 48 of the code drawn up by ACAS on these matters, which describes what can happen in a disciplinary procedure:
"Sometimes a worker may raise a grievance about the behaviour of a manager during the course of a disciplinary case. Where this happens, and depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to suspend disciplinary procedure for a short period until the grievance can be considered. Consideration might also be given to bringing in another manager to deal with the disciplinary case".
Where those circumstances arise, it is quite unfair if the employee does not have the right to have the grievance procedure satisfied as well as the disciplinary procedure. As we made clear in Committee, under the grievance procedure the employer must inform the employee of his decision as the response to a grievance; if he does not inform the employee of his decision, he is in breach of the grievance procedure. If he is in breach of the grievance procedure and fulfils the disciplinary procedure, why should the employee not be able to say immediately and automatically that the dismissal is unfair? The procedures on which the Government rely so much as being the great new innovation by statute and in every contract of employment in the land have not been fulfilled when they should be. ACAS makes that perfectly clear.
It is astonishing that the authors of the Bill, having made a mistake in the first instance, and even having had a rethink over months, have not given the employee the right to rely on a failure of the grievance procedure and as much as the failure of the employer can be relied on in the disciplinary procedure.
It is worse than that. Our proceedings on the second day of Report made it clear that we do not even know what a "grievance" is. We raised with the Minister the question of defining a grievance, which is at the heart of the structure of this part of the Bill. He could not give us a definition. He said that he would write to us, but we still await the correspondence. It seemed that he did not have a brief as to what is meant by "grievance".
Whatever a grievance is, the employee is entitled to have the proper procedure completed by the employer. That includes both the standard and the miserable and unfair modified procedure. If the employer does not complete the statutory disciplinary procedures, that, says the clause, is an unfair dismissal. The same would be true and just as justifiable in the circumstances described by the ACAS code where the grievance procedure should have been completed and was not. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will forgive me if I address the Bill as we have it before us rather than any preceding version of it, and if I address the amendment before the House and Clause 34 in which it is placed, rather than going over the ground of Schedule 2, with which we dealt last week.
These amendments are intended to have the same effect as one which was tabled in Grand Committee; namely, that if an employer did not complete his side of the statutory grievance procedure, and then dismissed the employee, the dismissal would be automatically unfair, even if the dismissal procedure was correctly followed.
Let us look first at what must happen now that we are introducing a statutory dismissal procedure. If he follows the procedure, the employer will have applied the minimum standard of fairness on which we are now insisting in the employee's interests. He will have other obligations under unfair dismissal law as well, but as a minimum we shall have ensured that employer and employee have had to get together to deal with the issues which prompted the employer to consider dismissing the employee. If the employer neglects to follow that procedure, the dismissal will automatically be unfair, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, recognised and indeed welcomed. The link between the two processes will be obvious to all: the dismissal procedure was not completed by the employer; therefore, the dismissal was unfair.
But if the employer did complete the dismissal procedure, I believe that that should be the end of the matter. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by saying that we should cast the net further back in time and take account of whether there was a prior grievance for which the statutory grievance procedure was or was not completed. As I said, there is an obvious link when failure to follow the dismissal procedure automatically triggers a finding of unfair dismissal. It is very far from obvious that failure to follow a grievance procedure in relation to a grievance that arose before that should trigger an automatically unfair dismissal, even when the dismissal procedure has been followed. I did not suggest that following the dismissal procedure will itself make up for any prior deficiencies in the grievance procedure. I said that there would he no logic in finding a dismissal unfair when the dismissal procedures has been followed simply because an earlier procedure designed for a different purpose has not been followed. But, in practice, if the dismissal was related to the earlier grievance there would be nothing to prevent the employee raising any failure to resolve it as part of the dialogue of the dismissal procedure itself. So I do not think that logically it is right to make a finding of unfair dismissal dependent on the employer's handling of a previous grievance.
I am afraid that this is an issue on which I cannot suggest any compromise between us. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will recognise that the
628
Government do not have a case to answer in relation to this amendment and that it will therefore not be pressed.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Unhappily, what he says appears to be based on a complete misapprehension of the party's case to which the amendment is directed. He talked a number of times about a grievance arising further back in time before the disciplinary procedure and about a previous grievance. That is not what the amendment is about at all
As I said, ACAS has said that a worker may sometimes raise a grievance about the behaviour of a manager during the course of a disciplinary case. Nothing could be clearer than that; that is what the amendment is about. If the worker raises a grievance during the course of a disciplinary case, surely he is entitled to have the grievance procedure completed. It is laid down in statute. Statute contains no exception of a grievance being raised in the middle of a disciplinary case; it is implied in the contract of employment. Why on earth should he not be able to rely upon that equally and even-handedly as he can rely upon a failure to complete the disciplinary procedure?
This is another case in which, with great respect, by not understanding the amendment, the Government are giving an advantage to the employer and shunting the matter off into what has been called in my noble friend's reply "part of a dialogue". If one has a right to something being done, one does not expect it to he remedied by part of a dialogue unless one is very lucky and the other party says, "I'll do it; I made a mistake". If the other party says that, then there would be no problem. However, if that does not happen, one is entitled to a remedy. That is all that the amendment says.
I hope that the Government will look at this matter again before Third Reading. I appreciate that my noble friend does not want to talk much about Schedule 2 any more because we have passed it. However, this provision is integral to the operation of Schedule 2. We showed the unfairness of that schedule in our previous debate. This is another example of the provision not being applied even-handedly. I hope that the Government will look again at the matter before Third Reading, and that they will tell the employers' organisation which is pressing them that they will not make any further concessions on Part 3. In fairness, this is something that they must look at again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 39, line 15, at end insert "other than a requirement or recommendation contained in a code issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the meat of the clause which attempts to reverse the principle laid down in Polkey v. Dayton Services, in

629
1988, by your Lordships' Judicial Committee. This amendment is new; it was not moved in Grand Committee. However, it arises from the debate in Grand Committee, in an attempt to find a compromise on the very worst feature of Clause 34. According to the clause, failure by an employer to follow a procedure other than the statutory!disciplinary procedures to which we have just adverted in the dismissal of an employee is no longer to be a reason that renders the employer's dismissal unreasonable, and is therefore no longer a basis for a claim of unfair dismissal.
Most people who work in this field have understood that to mean a reversal of the principle laid down in Polkey v. Dayton Services. The judgment in that case by the noble and learned Law Lords overturned the rule in previous mistaken judgments that the employer could rely on a dismissal even when he had failed to follow procedures if it would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss. That is why people interpret Clause 34 as overturning the judgment in Polkey. That is why people in the field find it very strange and wonder whether Ministers will adhere to what was said in the House of Commons three times by my honourable friend Alan Johnson, the Minister. My honourable friend said that this clause,
"should not be seen as reversing Polkey. It strengthens Polkey in respect of the basic minimum standards, and if those minimum standards are not kept, dismissal will automatically be unfair".
That of course is correct. He went on:
"The Polkey judgment made it likely that an employer who did not follow procedures would lose an unfair dismissal case. Our proposal makes it so important to follow minimum procedures that it will automatically be unfair to dismiss employees without doing so".
How on earth can Clause 34 strengthen the Polkey principle when it reverses it? It is very strange. My honourable friend even said that,
"In the great majority of such cases that we have looked at, the failure"—
by the employer—
"was in procedures that would have fallen within the new minimum standards and Clause 34 will be in line with the Polkey judgment".
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will do what no Minister has done so far—and this is very relevant to the thrust of the amendment—and tell us what constitutes that great majority of cases that will not be changed by Clause 34. It is almost impossible for most people to find one.
In another place, in the same discussion in Standing Committee, the Minister said:
"Only in cases in which employers have procedures over and above the minimum will restoration of the no-difference test apply. It is a partial and strictly defined restoration of the test".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 18/12/01; cols. 210–11.]
Like other statements on the effect of Clause 34 and the new Section 98A(2), that gives the impression that the employer is allowed under the clause to ignore procedural matters that have been agreed
630
contractually to apply at the place of work which go further than the minimum procedures in the standard or modified procedures of Schedule 2.
In Grand Committee in this House, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville characterised the problem in the same way. On the aim of Clause 34, he said that,
"many employers believe that introducing detailed in-house procedures is a losing game. Because they can never plead 'no difference', they fear being caught out by a tribunal if they are found to have made the slightest error in … their own procedures".—[Official Report 26/03/02; col. CWH 410.]
Other statements by Ministers have given the same impression; namely, that the change is only about failures by the employer to follow special procedures agreed in the procedures at that place of work. But of course that is not what the clause says at all.
The clause says that the employer will not commit an unfair dismissal if there is a,
"failure to follow … a procedure in relation to the dismissal",
and if the employer "would have decided to dismiss" anyway. The failure makes "no difference" under the new rule introduced by the clause, not only in following domestic/internal procedures agreed specially at that place of work, but in any procedure that the employer fails to follow in relation to the dismissal. The Bill's Explanatory Notes gave the same wrong impression. They state that the matter refers to,
"controversial case law around the question of whether or not the employer has to follow internal disciplinary procedures in order to establish reasonableness".
The notes also state that Polkey,
"removed the 'no difference' test".
In the other place, the Minister even said that the Government's intention was to encourage people,
"to look to the ACAS code, which still holds the field".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F 18/12/01; col. 211.]
That is the point of this amendment. In 1982, in the basic case of Williams v. Compare Maxim, Mr. Justice Browne-Wilkinson, as he then was, called the failure to satisfy procedures in codes such as the ACAS code a,
"blatant contravention of the standards of fair treatment generally accepted by fair employers".
The Polkey case and rule—which said that employers should not have the advantage of a "no difference" rule, and that they could not say, "even if we operated fair procedures, the result of our decision would have been the same"—overturned the "no difference" approach. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, in 1988 Industrial Cases Report, page 163, the no-difference rule,
"tends to distort the operation of the employment protection legislation in two important ways".
That is why your Lordships' Judicial Committee reversed the mistaken judgments. The noble and learned Lord said that, first, the no-difference rule allowed the tribunal to pose the hypothetical question of whether the result would have made any difference if the employer had followed the proper procedure, whereas what had to be considered—and up to now has had to be considered—was whether the employer's reason for the dismissal was sufficient and reasonable, not whether the employee had suffered an injustice on

631
some hypothetical basis. Secondly, the no-difference rule allowed the tribunal to avoid the question of whether the employee should be granted an order for reinstatement or re-engagement. That is quite clear in the judgments. Yet the Government are now going to reintroduce a "no difference" test on the basis that he—the employer—
"would have decided to dismiss … [anyway] if he had followed the procedure".
Our amendment says—this is by way of compromise because we do not like the reversal of Polkey—that if the Government are going to reverse Polkey in regard to the matters they have mainly discussed; namely, internal special agreed disciplinary procedures, they really must not reverse Polkey in regard to basic fundamental principles of fairness in procedure which, we say, can best be judged by looking at the ACAS code. If the Government have some other way of preserving the basic procedures, we should be happy to see it.
Of course, we acknowledge that we cannot tell exactly what will be in the ACAS code because the Government have made it clear that after the Bill is put on the statute book the code will have to be rewritten. However, we have complete confidence that the code will contain all the main recommendations and requirements of fundamentally fair procedures at the place of work, for example, that employers should have regard in disciplinary procedures to principles of natural justice (paragraph 9); that workers should he made aware of the likely consequences of breaking disciplinary works rules (paragraph 7); that procedures should have no hidden discrimination grounds (paragraph 17); that a worker should not normally he dismissed for poor performance without adequate warnings and the opportunity to improve (paragraph 25); and that disciplinary action against a shop steward should always be discussed first and foremost with senior union representatives and full-time officials (paragraph 26).
Those are basic rules of fairness in the ACAS code. They do not depend upon special procedures agreed by an internal code of the employer. Those, we say, should not be included in the no-difference test. That is why we would exclude them and ask the Government to exclude them from the clause as it stands. Of course, we understand that each case must be decided on its own merits. But all that this amendment would do is to preserve such principles of the ACAS code as things on which the tribunal would be allowed to ground an unfair dismissal in itself if it were sufficiently serious. That would not affect the impact of the clause on specially agreed internal procedures to which the no-difference rule would, if this amendment were introduced, still apply.
In that sense the amendment is an offer of a new compromise which would take the sting out of the very deep criticism which has been levelled at introducing a new privilege for employers to dismiss without implementing basic principles of fairness simply on their say-so that they would have dismissed anyway even if they had approached the matter with fair procedures. I trust that the Government will not throw
632
away this opportunity to escape from the darkest corners of the pit which has been dug by this part of Clause 34 and that they will accept the spirit of the new amendment. I hope that if they dislike its wording they will at least come back at Third Reading with something along these lines. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, there is much merit in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. We have to look at the architecture of the Bill if it goes through in its present form and that of the 1996 Act. One of the great difficulties is that it is hard to see how the "fairness" clauses in the 1996 Act relate both to the ACAS questions which have been highlighted by my noble friend and to the rather convoluted words of subsection (2) of new Section 98A with regard to the employer,
"if he shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure".
I have a question for the Minister as regards subsection (2) of new Section 98A. Do the Government intend to make it very clear, as it will affect people when they have to deal with it, that those words have to be read as subordinate to the fairness principle set out in the 1996 Act? Is not the guiding principle of all these procedures the fairness principle set out in Section 10 of the 1996 Act? That is a minimum area of clarification, as it were, in relation to the whole of subsection (2).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate that the intention behind the amendment is compromise and that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, introduces it in a spirit of compromise. I recognise that his preferred option would be that which he pursued in Committee.
Amendment No. 93 seeks to define the operation of Clause 34 by preventing the employer successfully pleading that not following a procedure beyond the statutory minima would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss if the procedure is a requirement or recommendation of an ACAS code. My understanding is that the code that is relevant here is the code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. That code, in its own words, is about good employment practice and it is central to the decent treatment of employees. We would always encourage employers to follow its recommendations; indeed, many are so fundamental to fair treatment that it is difficult to see how an employer could rationally claim that omitting them made no difference to his decision to dismiss. To that extent, there is no necessity to state that they are excluded from procedures in respect of which an employer could plead "no difference".
But good practice guidance is necessarily general. The code itself acknowledges that disciplinary rules will vary according to circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, acknowledged that each case would have to be decided in the light of its own circumstances. It would be wrong to make it an absolute that no recommendation of the code could

633
ever be followed less than fully, even if it would have made no difference to the outcome. What we are addressing in this clause is the concern of employers that they can be tripped up by minor procedural irregularities in an otherwise sound case. Our policy is that if following a procedure beyond the new statutory minima would have made a difference, new Section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will not apply. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, asked me whether that was subordinate to the 1996 Act; of course, Section 98 in the 1996 Act still stands. This is an additional procedure in new Section 98A. If doing so would not have made a difference, it will apply. It is as simple as that. It would be wholly unhelpful to this policy to dictate that some procedures beyond the minima count and some do not. Where following what it recommends would have made a difference to the outcome, the code will remain paramount, which is entirely right. I believe that that is what my noble friends want. They want to ensure that where it makes a difference to the outcome, the code remains paramount.
Of course, there is already a link between the ACAS code and the tribunals' consideration of unfair dismissal cases. It is admissible in evidence, and the tribunals are required to take its provisions into account if they consider them relevant to any proceeding before them. The tribunals already recognise that, where employers have not followed procedures, the employee might still have been dismissed even if the procedures had been followed; in other words, there are procedures which can be omitted without making a difference. Where a dismissal is unfair solely on procedural grounds, tribunals can, and do, reduce an employee's compensation, perhaps to nothing, if they believe that he or she would still have been dismissed if the procedure had been followed.
Therefore, tribunals are trusted now to make judgments about whether following procedures would have made a difference, and they continue to be trusted to do so in the new context. It would be wrong to fetter their judgment in the way that the amendment proposes. Individual cases vary enormously, and it is only in relation to individual cases that it is possible to say whether following any procedure would have made a difference. The tribunals surely know how to make such judgments. I am sure that neither my noble friend Lord Wedderburn nor my noble friend Lord Lea are suggesting that they do not trust them to use their discretion wisely.
We are not undermining or belittling the ACAS code by opposing the amendment. I have stressed the value of the code and I have stressed that failing to follow its core recommendations is very unlikely to allow an employer to plead "no difference". But to prevent employers ever arguing that following any part of it would have made no difference to their decision to dismiss would needlessly hamper the operation of the clause. Surely the real absurdity would be to insist that an employer with a perfectly valid reason for dismissing an employee who has
634
followed procedures in all important respects—in other words, all respects which could have had an effect on the decision to dismiss—should nevertheless be held to have dismissed him unfairly because of a slip-up which was irrelevant to the outcome. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, that may be one of the most important, obdurate government responses made in the course of this Bill. It is extraordinary that the Government do not wish to make the employer satisfy the requirements of fundamental fair procedures, as expressly suggested in the ACAS code. There is nothing new about this. As a matter of fact, the relevant matters were first addressed in the industrial relations code of 1972, which accompanied the Industrial Relations Act 1971. There is no question about whether a set of fundamental fair procedures exists. The Government have not previously advanced those as the things to which this section relates.
My noble friend said that there is no real necessity to state that. He seems to have forgotten that the Polkey case concerned just such a matter. That case did not involve an internal procedure specially agreed by the employer; it was a decision to make redundant three employees, of whom Polkey was one, without any warning or individual consultation. It would have been decided in the previous mistaken case law under the no difference procedure. As both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Bridge of Harwich, pointed out, that was a failure to satisfy the basic rules of fairness in redundancy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, also said that it was a failure to satisfy the basic code of consultation.
As the clause stands, that failure by the employer, which, contrary to previous case law, the House of Lords Judicial Committee decided was wrong and should be the basis of unfair dismissal, would not now be the basis of unfair dismissal. I do not know how my noble friend can refer to "minor procedural irregularities", which I wrote down as what he said. I also wrote down that the Government are not concerned with mere slip-ups He called the failure to warn an employee purportedly made redundant in the Polkey case a mere "slip-up". And, in the most recent case on the matter—that of Whitbread v. Hall in 2001—the Court of Appeal made clear that under the Polkey judgment the same principle applied to misconduct cases. In that case, a manager dealt with misconduct with her mind made up. In hearing the case, she did not properly go through the basic procedures of fairness; nor, indeed, did she go through an appeal procedure properly, as the employee could have requested. That is neither a slip-up nor a minor procedural irregularity.
The Government are in deep trouble on this matter. With the greatest respect, if they continue to misrepresent what the clause will do, there will be wrath to come. Workers will not simply ignore this because they will be the ones who suffer. They will be the people who are dismissed without proper procedures or even without the basic fairness of the

635
ACAS code procedures. They will be told, "Oh well, it makes no difference that we did not satisfy that. We would have dismissed you anyway. So don't come to us complaining about basic failure of natural justice because the Government have given us—the manager and the employer—the right to get rid of you and not to satisfy these basic procedures". The previous case law shows perfectly well how the clause will apply.
Therefore, when we read it in Hansard, the reply from the Government today will be a manifesto to workers to take action in other ways. If that is what the Government want, they will be as obdurate at Third Reading as they are now. I cannot understand how a Labour Government can fail to understand the lack of balance, the unfairness and the lack of evenhandedness of the clause as it stands. We offered a compromise to get them out of perhaps the worst of the clause, but they will not take it. We can only hope that more sensible thoughts will overcome them before they are overtaken by Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 94:
Page 39. line 18, after "unreasonable" insert ", provided that the dismissal is in all procedural respects fair,".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated the Polkey decision during discussion on the previous amendment. I shall not go over that area again because my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has explained in great detail what the Polkey judgment meant and what the Government's attitude to it has been.
In the Bill the Government appear to be accepting the line, which is perhaps advanced by the CBI, that tribunals put too much weight on trivial breaches of procedure rather than on the actual reasons for dismissal. Therefore, this amendment seeks to reverse the House of Lords Polkey judgment. There was a long debate on this issue in Committee during which the Minister was frequently challenged to produce evidence of cases in which trivial breaches of procedure had been held by tribunals to render unfair dismissals which otherwise would have been regarded as fair. I believe that it is right to say that no such evidence was produced. The one case quoted—that of British Airways—did not seem to me or to my noble friends to establish the point which the Government were endeavouring to make. Against that, we have evidence from Judge Prophet, the president of the employment tribunals, to the effect that he believes that the change proposed by the Government could be potentially disastrous.
There does not appear to be any real evidence that tribunals have been in the habit of finding against employers simply because of a trivial failure in procedure in a situation in which a dismissal would otherwise be regarded as fair. During debate in Committee, I and my noble friends endeavoured to explain to the Minister from the employee's point of' view the importance of procedures being followed
636
properly prior to any action, such as dismissal. For an employee, dismissal is a matter of great and serious concern. But the procedures are important to an employer as well if he wants to maintain reasonable industrial relations in his company. The problem is that the Government's attempt to reverse the Polkey judgment will send out the wrong signals. It will indicate to employers the opposite of what the Government want employers to understand. It will suggest that it is not important to follow procedures. That is why I find it difficult to understand the Government's stance.
We have been told throughout our discussion at this stage of the Bill that, if possible, the Government want industrial relations issues to be dealt with internally, and that, for that reason at least, minimal procedures must be established in the many small companies that do not have them at present. Yet the clause states that if they are not followed, it would not matter; that one could still win in the event of a case proceeding to a tribunal.
The Government's Explanatory Notes state, and the Minister has repeated today, that the main issue is whether or not the dismissal is fair. In that case, I urge the Government to accept our amendment, which puts the issue of fairness beyond doubt. We simply seek to add to this clause the fact that the dismissal is in all other procedural respects fair. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. In particular, I refer to our debate in Committee, in which we sought to discover why the Government objected to our amendment, which in many ways was similar to the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness.
As I understand it, the Government, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, put it in this way:
"Many employers expressed real concern that tribunals currently place too much weight on minor procedural breaches".
If the Government still say that that is the case, it seems to me that they should, even at Third Reading, produce more objective evidence of it than they have done so far.
When this matter was debated in Committee, I sought to persuade the Government to say what evidence they had. After all, their view, as the noble Baroness has said, was quite contrary to those of people with experience of these matters. For example, Judge Prophet maintained that the reverse is the case—that insignificant, unimportant, minor breaches of procedure based on procedural inadequacy do not result in decisions of unfair dismissal. He said that tribunals will take into account only cases of significant and real issues of procedural inadequacy.
The noble Baroness has referred to one case that did not stand up. When we asked again for further evidence, we were told that it was not a matter of evidence, but a matter of principle. It seemed to me that the Government were saying that if there was no evidence, that it never happened, and that tribunals took into account only significant breaches, it would

637
still be wrong because there had been complaints from employers and because the Government said, "If we do anything about this, there will be many more cases". Of course, if we again ask what evidence there is of "many more cases", we cannot have that evidence, because there is none.
I repeat that the Government do not appreciate why one has procedures at all. The procedures have an educative aspect. The fact is that by now most reasonable employers are quite prepared to discover what is said in the ACAS code so far as concerns substantive issues. If they have no good reason for doing so, employers do not want to sack people; they do not automatically want to dismiss people for unfair reasons. However, once they believe that they have a good case in terms of capacity or conduct, or some other substantial reason, they do not want to be held up and told, "You must get your records up, you must have had warnings, you must examine properly, you must have a proper appeals procedure". All those matters are contained in the procedural aspects of the ACAS code. They do not want to get involved in that procedure. From their points of view, it is unnecessary, because they have already made up their minds, and it is a procedure that takes time and represents an invasion of managerial prerogative.
If that is the case, as I believe it is, the Government want to lead us back, not into imaginary abuses of tribunals, picking up insignificant points, but to personnel managers telling themselves, "We now do not need to bother with the procedure". That is the very bad message that the Government would send out. Therefore, even at this late stage, I urge them to reconsider the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these amendments deal with that part of Clause 34 which provides that where an employer does not follow a procedure beyond the statutory minima; namely, those set out in Schedule 2, and he can show that doing so would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss, the procedural failure will not "by itself"—I emphasise those words, in line 17 of page 39 of the Bill—make the dismissal unfair. This is a limited, carefully-defined intervention into the unfair dismissal legislation. It deals with the criticism that it is too easy for employers who have a fair reason for dismissing an employee to be tripped up on trivial procedural grounds.
During our debate on the previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn objected to my talking about slip-ups. However, it is true that what we propose does not undermine the fundamental tenets of the legislation. Even where an employer is able to show that following a procedure beyond the statutory minimum would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss, the dismissal must be fair in all other respects. The central issue here—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just advanced a most important proposition and it is important that we
638
should not misunderstand what he said. He said, "The dismissal must be fair in all other respects". Substantively, of course, that is obvious. However, since the clause states that a failure of procedure should not by itself count as a ground for unfair dismissal, if the employer shows that he would have dismissed anyway, how is it possible to say that it must be shown that it was procedurally fair as the clause stands? Our amendment introduces precisely the concept that my noble friend the Minister has suggested, namely, that it must be fair in all other procedural respects, for which the clause at present makes no provision.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that illustrates very clearly the difference between us. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn and others seem to think that the fact that an employer can show that he would have dismissed anyway gets him off the hook. That is not the case. That is not what the Bill says. The issue is whether, as my noble friend and others seem to think, claiming no difference will by itself make a dismissal fair, because it has happened, because that is the fact of the matter, or whether, as we think, it must also be fair in all other respects. That is the situation. An amendment accepted at Commons Committee made that clear, although we at the time considered that it was implicit in the clause as originally worded.
That is the key to the difference between us. It has to be fair in all other respects. That is why we have the words "by itself' in the Bill. The amendment that we accepted in the other place made that clear, but I appreciate that the concerns remain, perhaps because the clause does not specifically refer to the need for the dismissal to be fair in other respects. Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 both suggest additional wording which specifically refers to fairness. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made that point quite legitimately in moving Amendment No. 94.
I hope that it will be helpful if I explain why this is unnecessary. To defend an unfair dismissal claim, an employer must first show that he dismissed the employee for one of the potentially fair reasons set out in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that is still there. Nothing in Clause 34 will change this. The employer who wants to plead "no difference" will still, in the first place, have to convince the tribunal that he had a fair reason for the dismissal.
Next, and finally, Section 98(4)(a) of the 1996 Act requires the tribunal to consider whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for that reason. Clause 34 changes this only by saying that a failure to follow a procedure beyond the statutory minimum will not by itself be unreasonable for the purposes of Section 98(4)(a) if the employer can show that it would have made no difference to his decision to dismiss. The words "by itself' make it clear that the employer must still act reasonably in all other respects.
Other wording about fairness is therefore unnecessary to ensure the limited nature of the change, which we have always stressed is not only unnecessary, but unhelpful. The amendments introduce the words

639
"fair" and "fairness" without defining them. As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said in Grand Committee, that would risk the development of a different test for new Section 98A from that which the tribunals otherwise apply in dismissal cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, when winding up the debate on the previous amendment, described the Polkey case and a particular application of it. On the facts of that case, as he described them, there would have been a clear failure to follow the statutory disciplinary procedures and therefore there would have been an unfair dismissal.
4 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me which step in the disciplinary procedures would have failed on the Polkey case facts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am going only on the example which the noble Lord gave. I am not going back into the whole history of that case. My point here is that it is for the tribunals, as I believe the noble Lord acknowledged, to make the decision on each case before them.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked for examples. For a Minister to generalise in such matters would not be wise when, as we have always made clear, it is the responsibility of the tribunals to make the judgments.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he address or think about the point that I was making that it is not just how he interprets the Act, it is what employers believe him to be doing and the conclusions that they draw? The Government may be right and in five years' time this particularly narrow interpretation of the Act will prove to be right and my noble friend will be wrong. But it will not matter much because employers will say that they were told that they do not have to bother about procedure. It is not just about tribunals, but employer behaviour and sending the wrong messages.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we have to rely on what the Bill says. It seems to us that it is entirely clear. Indeed, in his final remarks, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seems to be acknowledging that the Bill is clear and is asking us to act on misapprehensions which employers might have about the implications of the Bill before us. We cannot do that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am entirely unconvinced by what the Minister has said. He referred us to the wording of the clause, which seems very clear to me. It states,
"making the employer's action unreasonable if he shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure".
He had decided to dismiss. It does not say whether the grounds for dismissal were fair and there is no obligation in the clause to compel him to follow a fair
640
procedure. Neither do I believe that the inclusion of "will not by itself-necessarily assists the argument as far as we are concerned.
I believe that the point I made in debate, emphasised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, is that as the clause stands it will send out the message to employers that they do not have to bother very much about procedure even though they are supposed to have it. If they do not follow it, there is every chance that they will be able successfully to defend a case before art employment tribunal because it is not absolutely necessary that they adhere to all the procedures they are supposed to follow. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
Moreover, the message has gone out that the Government are reversing the Polkey judgment and that is generally known everywhere. It is even stated in the Government's own explanatory memorandum. To many people the reversal of that judgment may well mean in their minds that it is no longer so necessary to abide by procedures because if they do not employers have every chance of getting away with it at a tribunal. It is entirely unsatisfactory, but there is no point at this stage of the debate in pressing the amendment further. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position before Third Reading. In the meantime 11 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION FOR FAILURE TO RECEIVE PROPER STATEMENT OF WRITTEN PARTICULARS
In section 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (determination of references) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) Where on a reference under section 11 an employment tribunal finds that an employer has failed to give to an employee a statement as required by section 1, 4 or 8, the tribunal may make an award of compensation to the employee of an amount that is just and equitable having regard to the seriousness of the employer's default.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment aims to introduce into our employment protection law a matter which has long been a criticism of a number of commentators. It suggests that where the employer fails to give to the employee a statement of the written particulars of his contract of employment, the employee should be able to bring a case before the employment tribunal for just and equitable compensation. Of course, that does not make up for the failure to have the proper terms of the contract of employment.
Indeed, everything in the law, from the contracts of employment legislation in 1963 and onwards has given the employee a right to have those terms within the stated period provided by the employer. It has always been a gap in the statutory particulars that the employee has not had a remedy immediately if he is not given the particulars that he should have. In the Grand Committee debate on parallel matters, the Minister described it as a failure to provide a stand-alone

641
remedy. That means that there was a remedy to compensation if the employer simply failed to provide what he was legally obliged to do under a number of sections of what is now the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The reason for having a right to compensation is that it provides a sanction against the employer and a warning to him that if he does not provide the particulars which the law says he must, then there will be some remedy. At the moment there is no automatic remedy other than a declaration from the tribunal which has been shown to be ineffective in a number of the cases involved.
In Grand Committee the Government argued that it was quite unreasonable to provide any sanction on the matter because just to fail to give the employee his written particulars of employment was not of itself a matter of damage. That point led us to advance this amendment again. I hope that the Minister will not reply by referring to the Government's amendments and the provisions in Clause 38, to which we shall turn in the next group of amendments. Although they affect the structure of the Bill in a rather complicated and unnecessarily complex manner, they do not provide an automatic remedy, as this amendment would, for an employee deprived of written evidence of his contractual terms in the statement of written particulars.
The reason why a stand-alone remedy—if one wants to use that kind of vocabulary—is appropriate is that a failure to receive the statement of the contractual terms in writing is damaging to the employee. Without the evidence that he should have to prove a matter, an employee is unable to know whether he has good grounds on which to claim that the terms of the employment have been broken. Frequently the tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have described a written statement of the contractual particulars of employment that an employer should give to an employee as "the best evidence" of what the contract provides. An employee is deprived of the best evidence of his rights under his contract of employment. In itself that is a good reason to enable him to bring an action for just and equitable compensation: he is deprived of the ability to claim when his contract of employment is broken.
Ministers have been quite obdurate on this matter, as on so many. But I hope that on this occasion they will either accept the amendment or explain to the House that they will adjust the remedies under Clause 38, or other parts of the Bill, to provide an employee, who is deprived of his right to have a written statement of his contractual terms, with a remedy in the employment tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn started by saying that he hoped that I would not bring into the argument Amendments Nos. 97 to 106 to Clause 38 that we debated with the paving amendments on Clause 31. I am afraid that I shall do that because those
642
amendments simplify the awards increase for noncompliance with the written statement of employment particulars provisions in certain circumstances. My understanding is that the House, in accepting the paving amendment to Clause 31, and having debated Amendments Nos. 97 to 106, accepted those amendments.
Of course, some noble Lords feel that we should go as far as providing free-standing compensation for any failure to meet the written statement requirements. Amendment No. 96, which was first tabled in Grand Committee, seeks to do that. It seeks to introduce such a right to compensation not only where an employer has failed to meet the requirement to issue an adequate written statement but also for a failure to comply with the equivalent itemised pay statement.
In Grand Committee I made it clear that we believe that we are right to preserve some form of link between a financial penalty for a breach of the written statement requirements and a penalty for a breach under some other type of claim. We also believe that the existing remedy for a complaint under the itemised pay statement provisions deals proportionately with the abuse suffered. Generally speaking, I believe that the amendments to Clause 38 gained the approval of the Grand Committee when there was a considerable degree of confusion and dismay at the way in which Clause 38 was originally drafted.
This is a matter of balance. I recognise my noble friend Lord Wedderburn's good intentions in highlighting the importance of the pay statement, and in particular, the written statement of employment particulars, whose crucial role in dispute resolution is clear. However, I believe that the amendment would take us further than we want to go. We should not forget that Clause 38 introduces a new protection for employees, by creating a new penalty on employers. We are introducing a new right. There is no sense in which we are removing any right by tying the awards increase to complaints under the major jurisdictions and the existing remedy of supplying an adequate statement will still apply where the problem is solely that the written statement is inadequate or nonexistent. To go beyond that and to introduce a standalone penalty would run the risk of undermining the effective consensus between employers and employees that there appears to be on this issue. I also believe that there is consensus in the House. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in the face of that reply, for which I thank my noble friend, one is tempted to say that there is scarcely any amendment on the Marshalled List that one would want to press rather than this one. It has been said that the amendments to Clause 38 have already been accepted by the House. Of course, this is where they should be justified. Having read Hansard, they were debated in what was probably the most confusing debate of this Report stage because they were grouped under Clause 31. We could do nothing about that as they were all government amendments. There was no explanation

643
in regard to Clause 38 as to why it was unfair to introduce what is now called a stand-alone sanction. Even now there is no explanation, other than that the balance should once again be given to the employer.
The balance dictates that an employer who has failed in his obligations to provide written particulars—obligations that he or she has been under since 1963—should not be vulnerable to an action for compensation in a tribunal. It is as though the amendment would take the Government further than they want to go because this part of the Act is a deal with the CBI, the EEF and the chambers of commerce, all of whose websites, which are available for noble Lords to read, contain plenty of documents to show that Parts 2 and 3 are a deal on which employers have dug in their heels and on which the Government are obdurate because they feel that their hands are tied, as do some other bodies. It is a deal on which they said, "We shall accept your paternity and maternity rights and we will even accept union learning representatives"—although they are not happy about that—"if you give us Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill".
As I said in Grand Committee, most of the Bill, with small exceptions on which we managed to get the Government to move, is set in stone. Even an employer who fails to give an employee his contractual rights on paper, which by law he is obliged to do, can escape any so-called stand-alone sanction. It is quite absurd. The Government will not change on this matter; there is nothing that we can do to make them, but they will reap an unhappy harvest from being so obdurate on such simple matters of fairness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Failure to give statement of employment particulars, etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 97 to 106:
Page 42, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) when the proceedings were begun the employer was in breach of his duty to the employee under section 1(1) or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (duty to give a written statement of initial employment particulars or of particulars of change),"
Page 42, line 11, leave out "shall" and insert "must, subject to subsection (5),"
Page 42, line 11, leave out "appropriate" and insert "minimum"
Page 42, line 12, at end insert "and may, if it considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances, award the higher amount instead"
Page 42, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) when the proceedings were begun the employer was in breach of his duty to the employee under section 1(1) or 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18),"
Page 42, line 17, leave out "shall" and insert "must, subject to subsection (5),"
Page 42, line 17, leave out from "and" to "may" in line 18.
Page 42, line 19, leave out from "by" to end of line 20 and insert "the higher amount instead"
644
Page 42, line 21, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—
"(4) In subsections (2) and (3)—

(a) references to the minimum amount are to an amount equal to two weeks' pay, and

(b) references to the higher amount are to an amount equal to four weeks' pay.

(5) The duty under subsection (2) or (3) does not apply if there are exceptional circumstances which would make an award or increase under that subsection unjust or inequitable."
Page 43, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Compromise agreements]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 107:
Leave out Clause 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 39 on compromise agreements caused a great deal of concern when we debated it in Grand Committee. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury announced to the House on 30th April, in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord McCarthy, that the Government had decided to bring forward an amendment at Report stage of the Bill to delete the clause.
We continue to feel that some of the concerns expressed are misplaced and perhaps it would be helpful if I run through our reasons for the deletion of Clause 39 once again. They are twofold. First, although we continue to believe that any agreement that attempts to compromise away an employee's future rights would not be a valid agreement, we recognise that recent case law—my noble friend Lord Wedderburn argued this part of the case effectively in Committee—has created some uncertainty in this area.
Secondly, we recognise the risk that even though such an agreement would in our view be invalid, an employer might nevertheless attempt to persuade his employee to sign such an agreement. And if that happened, the fact that its legal validity was highly questionable would not alter the fact that having signed the agreement the employee might well then be deterred from going to a tribunal in the future in the belief that he no longer had the right to do so.
I have made clear, as have the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that it is not the Government's intention that any employee should be deterred in this way. We have concluded that we cannot risk Clause 39 of the Employment Bill being misused like this and we ask the House to support our amendment to delete it from the Bill. The other amendments are purely consequential.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I had wanted simply to say that we thank the Government and wish that they could find it in their hearts to do this kind of thing more often. However, the Minister dares me to say something more. He seems to be trying to go back on what he has conceded. He said that his was a good case but he has given in on it. I cannot think why. So I have to draw some quick lessons.

645
I give three examples. The real significance, if only the Government could acknowledge it, is that they start with a bum brief. When that brief is examined it falls apart. Everything goes back to the bum brief. SETA was a bum brief. The Government began by saying that they had to do what they had to do because employers told them that cases were being held up. They could not settle outside tribunals; and if they did so they still had problems because residual points kept cropping up. The doctrine of residual points is a bum brief. They could not find any examples of residual points, so they moved off that.
Then the Government said that it must be all right because ACAS does it. That is a bum brief. ACAS would be horrified at the whole idea. So when that was examined, it fell down. Finally, they said that the employers would not want people to sell rights like this. But the more the Government looked at it, the more likely that was. They realised that they cannot just put provisions on the face of the Bill and say, "That's the way tribunals and judges will interpret them; and that won't happen". Employers may seek to make it happen. If the Government had been properly briefed, with proper information and research, without accepting everything they are told by the CBI, they could have given many more concessions.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government's concession. Perhaps I can say what the Minister may not wish to say. In answer to a Question in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, indicated that he was minded to take this action. I suggested that perhaps it was a mistake not to have given the credit for it to either the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, or the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. The remarks which have just ensued may demonstrate how right I was.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I confess that I was surprised when I saw the amendment on the Marshalled List. The Minister wrote courteously to me to say that the provisions had been changed. I was surprised when the answer was given to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Nothing that has been said has made me change my mind about what I regard as a U-turn by the Government.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 39 provide for the repeal or amendment of nine clauses in the several Acts or regulations referred to in Clause 39. The clauses in the Acts and regulations dated between 1975 and as recently as 1999 effectively provided for the right, under very stringent conditions and circumstances, to contract out of the Acts to the extent that the employer and employee were compromising some issue between them. I am sorry if I appear to over-simplify the provisions affected by Clause 39 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, laughs. I do not suppose that he is surprised by what I said. The detail is not important for the purpose of considering the Government's volte-face.
646
Clause 39 was introduced to Parliament on 7th November 2001. It has remained there totally unaltered throughout the stages of the Bill in another place and in your Lordships' House. Not only was it unaltered, it was accepted without discussion in the Standing Committee of another place.
The Government's proposals on Clause 39 would have the effect of removing some of the restrictions on compromise agreements between employers and employees. This would have ensured that agreements compromising disputes did not have to be limited to the particular complaint in issue but could also form a final settlement for related claims or even possible claims.
The clause would have removed the ludicrous necessity for employers to list possible disputes that had not arisen and were not even likely to arise when one particular issue was compromised. For example, it would have removed the possibility for a severance package on redundancy to be settled, only for the employer to be faced with a new claim for race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination and whistle-blowing and a whole shopping list of other claims. That would be done by the parties entering into an agreement confirming that the settlement was in full and final settlement of all claims then existing between the parties. I stress the words "then existing". "In full and final settlement" is the equivalent of what in divorce cases is called a clean break settlement.
I have to conclude that the reason the Government have been prevailed upon to retain the rigid conditions in the various Acts and regulations is some fear that employers would somehow prevail upon or, worse still, coerce employees to give up the rights that Parliament has given them.
I do not criticise the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, whose views are strongly and genuinely held and who have honourably and doggedly fought their corner throughout the proceedings in this House. But I have to say that in respect of this concession they have seemingly wrung out of the Government, their fears are what I can only describe as old, old Labour. I am sure that the two noble Lords will regard that as a compliment.
The days of dark, satanic mills have gone. The days of wicked capitalists grinding the faces of the poor have gone. With all the social legislation passed by this Government, or imposed on us from Brussels—it includes maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, family emergency leave and so on—the employer is more likely to be the grindee than the grinder, especially as the vast majority of workers in this country are now employed by small or medium-sized businesses and not vast international monolithic corporations.
The Government introduced Clause 39 as a result of mature consideration of the workings of the Acts over a period—in some cases a quarter of a century, as appears from the Explanatory Notes to which I shall refer in a moment. The result of the Government's belated change of mind is that the rigid conditions for compromise agreements are restored.

647
This provision was a sensible one which would have vastly simplified matters and would have reduced the costs payable by both employers and employees in reaching settlements. I am told by lawyers specialising in the field of employment relations that with the formalities currently required, these costs could amount to between £250 and £750 per case and the only people who benefit from the continuation of these unnecessary restrictions are the lawyers.
In the Explanatory Notes the Government refer to the provision that the compromise must relate to a particular complaint. It is stated,
"This requirement has led to uncertainty about the extent to which all claims and potential claims to the employment tribunal can be contracted out via a compromise agreement. This change will ensure that a compromise agreement does not have to be limited to agreement about the particular complaint, and is thus consistent with the current extent of ACAS-conciliated agreements".
It states also,
"The Government's objective in making this change is to ensure that compromise agreements are as effective and as wide in extent as ACAS conciliated settlements".
That was a laudable objective of ensuring consistency between ACAS-sponsored agreements and those arranged between the parties themselves. The Government are now going to abandon that objective because of unjustified fears that workers will somehow he tricked out of their legitimate rights. That was the case made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
I am prepared to concede that instead of the blanket proposed cancellation of Clause 39, a little more careful drafting could have clarified the matter by limiting the amendment of the various existing statutes and regulations to agreements either made on the termination of employment or, if the employment continues, to the compromise of existing disputes and excluding matters occurring after the date of the compromise.
Like other noble Lords, I have a received a brief from the Law Society complaining about the Government's proposal to delete the clause, which it had previously asked the Government to modify. That, as I said, would have been possible. It wanted the Government to make clear that employees could sign away rights only in relation to past events when a dispute was being compromised. It now complains that the Government have abandoned the clause entirely rather than improved its functioning. I agree with its interpretation.
In rejecting their own sensible proposals, without tabling anything clearer, if necessary to mollify their supporters, in their place, the Government have thrown out the whole clause with the bath water. Rather than do that, they should find a new plug. I urge the Minister to abandon this proposal and instead come up with a proposal at Third Reading in line with the objectives of the Explanatory Notes. Without giving a blank cheque—which, of course, I cannot, as I do not know what the Minister is going to do—I would be happy and willing to discuss any such proposal in a constructive manner before the next stage. As it stands, I totally oppose the Government's proposal.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend's remarks. Perhaps I may tweak the Government's tail a little. Whenever I listen to these debates, I find either the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, or the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on his feet assailing the Government. I know for the first time in my career that the Government must be right because over the years the noble Lords have introduced legislation through Michael Foot, Albert Booth and others that was disastrous to this country and that had to be repealed.
I thought that the Government had for once come to the conclusion that they could stand up to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. It is a great pity that they cannot.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps to the surprise of my noble friends on the Front Bench, I applaud their reaction to what we said ill Grand Committee and in earlier discussion of the Bill. We have made the point repeatedly, and in a way the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to it when she said that we had raised the possibility of employers coercing vulnerable employees or would-be employees into giving away the rights they were allowed in law.
That is precisely right. Not only were we concerned, but also unions and other external organisations were concerned that the way in which Clause 39 was drafted could mean that vulnerable people seeking employment could sign away rights to which they were entitled in law in order to obtain employment. The contract between employer and employee is rarely equal. The employee wants the job and is often willing to make some concessions or sacrifices in order to obtain it. We do not believe that vulnerable people should be exploited in such a way. The Government have accepted our arguments and should be applauded for so doing.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, in view of what has become a classic occasion of employment law debate, two sentences in addition to those of my noble friend may he appropriate. Of course I welcome the Government's agreement that the clause would have given rise to a risk of unscrupulous employers—who are not the majority—leaning on workers to give up their legal rights to employment protection. Whatever disagreements I may have on the minutiae of the case law were resolved in our Grand Committee debate.
I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord Prior, taking part in that debate and what he understands to be the position is still obscure, except that we have had statements of the Official Opposition's employment law policy from the Front Benches and Back Benches. That policy will be read with great care, as it was presented at great length by the From Bench spokesman of the Official Opposition. On reading it in detail, commentators will find it to be an antediluvian policy in regard to employment protection rights.

649
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, wants to interrupt. She always wants to interrupt when I describe the Official Opposition's position on the Bill. They have not moved one amendment on this clause, or any other, in favour of workers' employment protection rights. They have obstructed the idea of employment protection rights throughout, and now they want to keep a provision that debate has shown would be a danger to employees.
I congratulate the Ministers. There has been a good debate between them and us to which the Opposition contributed nothing. They did not table any amendments. They did not seem to understand what the debate was about, except that it might favour workers. We have now had the antediluvian policy stated at great length. We shall read it with great care—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am aware that this is Report stage, although I have to say that the other side are not. I cannot allow the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to continue in the way he did in Grand Committee, talking about us as wicked employers who are virtually grinding the faces of the poor. He called me someone from the past. The noble Lord is living in the past. As I said, with all the directives now coming from Brussels—paternity leave, maternity leave and so on—it is difficult for small businesses to continue. The noble Lord should remember that the day you ruin small businesses and medium-sized enterprises, the poor workers will have reason to thank you. Enough is enough, and the noble Lord should stop it now.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I always take great care to notice what the noble Baroness says. I am never able to satisfy her or to give her any pleasure in the arguments I advance. It is true that I am old; I now feel very old. But the Ministers and I have exchanged views on the matter. They want to abolish Clause 39 because of its risks. The noble Baroness wants to keep it despite its risks. We will notice that antediluvian policy and workers will know what to make of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the urge to make cheap debating points is almost irresistible, but I shall try very hard to resist the temptation. Perhaps I may bring the debate back to the fundamentals of the clause and the amendment that we are considering, rather than continue with the political, economic and employment history about which we have been hearing.
In putting Clause 39 into the Bill, we wished to build on the possibility that is raised through a number of legislative vehicles; namely, that there might, by full agreement and in full knowledge of the consequences, be compromise agreements that would mean that the full rigour of employment legislation might not always be necessary in particular workplaces. Through Clause 39, we attempted to remove some of the existing limitations in previous legislation that would restrict
650
compromise agreements to particular proceedings, or, in contracts settling certain kinds of complaint, would relate only to the particular complaint. We were of the view that that would be helpful.
When that clause came before the Grand Committee, we were subject to—I do not believe it is rude to say—a barrage of criticism from my own Back Benches; namely, from my noble friends Lords Wedderburn, Lord McCarthy, Lord Gladwin, Lord Lea, Lady Turner, and others. In particular, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn cited the case of BCCI v Ali, a recent Law Lords' decision. He pointed out that the effect of Clause 39 might be to extend the possibility of compromise agreements to cases where employees would be signing away future rights, rights that they did not know existed, or with consequences that they did not know existed.
We did not believe that that was the case. Indeed, I have two pages of notes about BCCI v Ali that I shall refrain from reading to the House. We recognised that it would not be acceptable if the impression were gained from this legislation that it was possible for employers to induce employees to sign away future rights, or rights that they did not understand, and to use that to the disbenefit of employees. We considered the possibility of amending Clause 39. We have read the Law Society brief. We know that there are possibilities—we considered all of them—of doing this by amending rather than by removal. We took legal advice on the matter, and also took ministerial judgment. We came to the conclusion that the simplest course for all concerned in reality, as well as in appearance, was to remove the clause as it stands. We believe that that will be for the benefit of the Bill. We are grateful to all those who have taken part in the debates that made such amendments possible. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 184; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Addington, L.

Blease, L.

Ahmed, L.

Borrie, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bradshaw, L.

Alli,L.

Bragg, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brightman, L.

Amos,B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brookman, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Burlison, L.

Barnett, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chorley, L.

Berkeley, L.

Christopher, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Bhatia, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Billingham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

651

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morgan, L.

Derby, Bp.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northover, B.

Dubs, L.

Orme, L.

Elder, L.

Palmer, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Paul, L.

Falkland, V.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Peston, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Fitt,L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gavron, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Radice, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Razzall, L.

Golding, B.

Rea,L.

Goldsmith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Goudie, B

Richard, L.

Greenway, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Gregson, L.

Rix, L.

Grenfell, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rooker, L.

Hamwee, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Roper, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Russell, E.

Harrison, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Haskins, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hayman, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota B

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hooson, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon. L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hughes of Woodside L

Stallard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Islwyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jacobs, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thornton, B.

Jones, L.

Tope, L.

Judd, L.

Turnberg, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Uddin, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lockwood, B.

Warnock, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McCarthy. L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mackie of Benshie, L.

McNally, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Maddock, B.

Winston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

652

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blaker, L.

Laird, L.

Blatch, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Boardman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bowness, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caithness, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller)

O'Cathain, B.

Cuckney, L.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dixon-Smith L

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Elton L

Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Freeman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Goschen, V.

Selsdon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hogg, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tebbit, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Jopling, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Vinson, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
"VICTIMISATION
(1) Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (protection from suffering detriment in employment) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 47C there is inserted—
"47D VICTIMISATION
An individual to whom section 29 and Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002 applies has the right not to he subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the grounds that the individual has taken or proposes to take, or is suspected of taking or proposing to take, any steps under statutory disputes resolution procedure."
(3) In section 48(1) (complaints to (employment tribunals)) after "47C" there is inserted "47D".
(4) Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (unfair dismissal) is amended as follows.

653
(5) After section 104B there is inserted—
"104C VICTIMISATION
An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purpose of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee has taken or proposes to take, or is suspected of taking or proposing to take any step under a statutory dispute resolution procedure.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apology for introducing—as I did in Committee—an amendment designed to protect employees who seek to exercise employment rights available to them by law. The first part of the amendment stipulates that an employee has a right not to be subjected to any detriment because he is proposing to take, or is suspected of proposing to take, any steps under statutory dispute resolution procedures. The second part deals with dismissal and stipulates that an employee who is dismissed shall be regarded as unfairly dismissed if the reason, or the principal reason, for the dismissal is that he was proposing to take, or was suspected of proposing to take, any step under statutory dispute resolution procedures.
My noble friends and I are surprised that no such protection is set out on the face of the Bill. A no-detriment clause—a no-victimisation clause—appears in much legislation concerned with employee rights. Recently, the Tax Credits Bill received its Second Reading in this House. In that Bill, Schedule 1, "Rights of employees"—the right not to suffer detriment—is a lengthy schedule designed to give precisely the protection that we are seeking with a no-detriment clause in this Bill.
In Committee the Minister, while expressing sympathy for my proposal, claimed that it was not necessary because it was covered elsewhere in legislation. He stated:
"It is beyond dispute that since dismissals for asserting a statutory right are automatically unfair by statute, no sensible tribunal would find a dismissal for using one of the statutory disputes procedures fair".—[Official Report 26/3/02; col. CWH 372]
As to detriment, he claimed that there was no evidence that "broad rights" not to suffer detriment are needed. I emphasise, in his view, "broad rights" are not needed.
In that case, why do the Government feel that it is necessary to give protection in legislation to employees seeking to invoke rights under the Tax Credits Bill but not necessary in the case of the Employment Bill? I believe that it is necessary to give to employees protection of the kind that we are seeking in this amendment. If all employers were entirely scrupulous when dealing with their workers, legislation would not be needed at all.
However, we know only too well that that is not so. The employer/employee relationship is rarely an equal one. As we know, membership of a union can alter the balance, but many employment environments are not union organised. We know that bullying goes on in many work places. The Work Foundation, formerly the Industrial Society—I and my noble friend Lord Gladwin were council members of the society—has recently undertaken research which shows that
654
bullying at work is fairly widespread. Indeed, the House has recently debated a Private Member's Bill—the Dignity at Work Billߞwhich was introduced by my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen.
There is ample reason to insist that employees seeking to exercise their rights should have some protection and that that should be on the face of the Bill. Employers should know that if they seek to intimidate workers into abandoning rights which the law says they should have, they face the strong possibility of losing before an employment tribunal, with the cost that that is likely to entail. Should they seek to dismiss they are going to lose anyway. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Turner I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 109 which is concerned with a remedy for victimisation.
There is a sense in which, under parts of the Bill, victimised workers could be the underclass of this legislation. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton recognised in a previous debate on Report concerning Schedule 4 and Clause 32 that a bad employer might well say to a worker, "If you threaten to take me to a tribunal, I will take you off the overtime rota" or, as my noble and learned friend cited as an example, "I will put you on dirty jobs".
The Acts of Parliament call that "detriment" and we use the same language. But in real life, at the place of work, it is known as victimisation. When workers are victimised by their employers because they propose to enforce their rights, whether it is the right to a national minimum wage or to support union recognition, or even to complain about a breach of safety regulations that puts lives in danger, the Bill says that they cannot enforce that remedy against victimisation immediately—remedies that have been included in every piece of employment protection legislation from both administrations—unless they initiate procedures asking the employer to reconsider the matter and then wait another 28 days during which there is no protection against being victimised further.
That decision, which some see as a decision to punish workers already punished by their employers for daring to enforce rights at work, will be made much worse if the Government refuse to incorporate adequate victimisation clauses in the Bill. They are not extraordinary or unusual; they are perfectly normal in legislation that deals with employment protection rights and employment protection obligations on the part of employers. They are concerned with actions which can make workers' lives miserable just because they take the lawful step of attempting to register access to justice to enforce rights. Ministers rightly claimed credit recently for increasing the ambit of employment protection in Britain, but protection without enforcement is no protection at all.
There is no protection for the worker who is not allowed to breathe the name of the tribunal. That is why Amendment No. 108, moved by my noble friend

655
Lady Turner, is needed, and why Amendment No. 109, which we also tabled, is needed. Indeed, Amendment No. 109 is important because it deals with victimisation for attempting to do something relating to this Bill. Obviously, it is not included under previous legislation. If, as may have been suggested in Grand Committee, previous legislation is said by the Government to cover the ground or part of the ground of either of the proposed amendments, then they must cite a precise section and statute under which they say part or all of the ground is coveredߞsomething they did not do in Grand Committee and cannot do because no previous legislation covers it.
Since Amendment No. 109 may not be fully published in Hansard, I shall read it in full:
"An individual to whom section 32 applies"—
that is, a worker whose access to justice through a tribunal is limited—
"has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the grounds (hat the individual has communicated or proposes to communicate, or is suspected of communicating, a complaint to an employment tribunal when prohibited by that section to present the complaint".
It may be that the Government do not like the words,
"when prohibited by that section",
and would prefer, "when his complaint is not admissible". If so, I would understand their accepting it in spirit and producing words of their own at Third Reading. The amendment provides the perfectly normal, customary defence against dismissal as an unfair dismissal on the same grounds.
I cannot urge the Government too strongly to ensure that this is not the first Employment Bill which fails to make adequate provision for victimisation. Every previous Bill, under all administrations, has provided against victimisation for daring to enforce one's rights as a worker and for daring to take steps which are lawful under the legislation. That is all that the amendments seek to do. I support the case made by my noble friend and urge the Government to accept Amendment No. 109 also.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to turn the Government's attention to a narrow but vital issue. In Committee we debated, over five columns of Hansard, what the existing position was; whether there was, in the field of labour law, protection against victimisation and detriment; where it was, and how we could be certain about that, and where it was not.
At col. CWH372 the Minister gave us the nearest we got to a solid statement. But the more I read his words, the more doubtful I was that we had all we needed. If I understood him rightly, he gave us three related statements. He said that,
"there is protection in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and elsewhere, for employees who are dismissed for asserting a wide range of statutory rights".
How wide we do not yet know. Are they comprehensive? Suspiciously not, because a "wide range" suggests something left outside. Secondly, intending to reassure us—this may relate to the area outside the wide range, I am not certain—he said that,
656
"no sensible tribunal would find a dismissal for using one of the statutory dispute procedures fair";
in other words, if one used statutory procedures one could not say it was a fair dismissal. He said, "no sensible tribunal", but of course he cannot tell us that all tribunals will be sensible. So though it looks good, it does not really satisfy.
The Minister moved on to "detriment short of dismissal" on a wide range of grounds in the 1996 Act. That sounds as good as we had in the protection on dismissal. But he went on to say that from time to time further ones had been added. That suggests again that something is left outside. We heard nothing about the criteria used for adding the further ones. There was no list; no definitive announcement of where they exist or where they do not exist. So I suggest we are now in the position of total chaos; we just do not know what. the position is.
The Minister then changed tack and started to tell us why he could not accept our amendment. He said that the Government were right to be cautious; that our amendment was rash. He said that there was no evidence that "broad rights" are needed. I had not heard that term before, which is not saying anything. But my noble friend Lord Wedderburn had not heard it either. He could not tell me what "broad rights" are. How broad is "broad"? What about a "narrow" right?
So there is no evidence that we need broad rights. I take it that it is a reference to our amendment; that it creates broad rights because it is intended to be comprehensive. The Minister then said,
"I need hardly say"—
though he went on to say—
"that any such broad rights"—
here comes the cloven hoofߞ
"would add greatly to the potential for tribunal complaints".
We have been through this over a long period of time. I shall not ask if he has any evidence for that, because I know he has not. But he believes that the CBI says it would,
"add greatly to the potential for tribunal complaints".
Again we asked for more evidence. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn asked for a particular case. The Minister said:
"I do not have the facilities to go back to all legislation ֵ I will have to write to ֵ Lord Wedderburn ֵI will copy the letter to everyone else who has taken part in the Committee".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col. CWH 374.]
I have spoken to my noble friends. They have not received a letter. That was said 12 weeks ago. The letter has not been written. Therefore, as I say, we are as mysteriously uninformed as we were.
I conclude by asking yet again a number of precise questions. First, which statutory rights are and which are not protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996? Secondly, in what legislation, if any, are those which are left out to be found? Thirdly, with regard to detriment short of dismissal, do the Government intend to add more to the list? If so, how many will be added? I think that we are entitled to have this

657
evidence. We are entitled to have that letter. We are entitled to have the mess cleared up. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first of the amendments provides extra protections against dismissal and detriment for employees who use the statutory procedures. The second provides similar protections in the case where an employee has been "prohibited" from making an application to a tribunal under Section 32 of the Act. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn anticipated that I would not be very happy with the use of the word "prohibited". He is right. If we were in general to support the amendment we would accept it subject to a subsequent amendment referring to "admissibility". That is not the core of the argument here.
We debated similar amendments in Grand Committee on 26th March. I need to repeat some of the same arguments. There are two cases. First, there is the case for providing protections against dismissal. There are already significant protections against abuse in those areas. Importantly, it is already automatically unfair to dismiss a person for asserting a statutory right. It should be remembered that the Bill extends statutory rights by the procedures set out in Schedule 2. Many grievances which employees air with their employer involve a statutory right. Their complaints therefore constitute the assertion of a statutory right. And, of course, virtually all applications to tribunals, including inadmissible ones, also involve the assertion of a statutory right. So, employees are already protected against dismissal in those circumstances.
There are some cases where complaints do not involve statutory rights. Tribunals assess the fairness of such dismissals against the general provisions on unfair dismissal, which are found in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Our considered judgment is that the prospects of a tribunal considering it reasonable for the employer to dismiss an employee simply because he tried to raise a concern with him are unreal in almost all cases. But we must not forget that there might be a case where the employee was dismissed for vexatiously and repeatedly raising complaints via internal procedures—a circumstance which needs to be borne in mind when considering this issue.
It follows from that analysis that there are already adequate protections against dismissal for employees who make reasonable use of the statutory procedures or who make inadmissible applications to tribunals.
I now turn to the protections against detrimental actions short of dismissal for using the statutory procedures. There is no general protection against unfair treatment by employers involving actions short of dismissal. To that extent, I understand the arguments that have been put. Instead, legislation establishes protections in this area on a case-by-case basis.
The range of existing protections is limited. They target key areas of potential abuse. They are listed—mostly—in Sections 44 to 47C of the 1996 Act. I shall
658
mention some because I was specifically asked which cases are protected against detriment—health and safety, Sunday working for shopping and betting workers, working time, trustees of occupational pensions schemes, employee representatives, time off for study or training, protected disclosures and leave for family and domestic reasons. That is not an exhaustive list, but I hope that it is a reasonable, proportionate and sensible response to the question asked.
Having said that, I must apologise to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for not writing to him. It is quite true that I have not written to him. Of course I will do so. I make clear that I shall do so before the Third Reading of the Bill. He is entitled to an apology; he has an unqualified apology.
We must ask whether it is necessary to add these new core areas to that list. We are not convinced that there is a good case for so doing. It is far from certain that problems will arise in practice. If one looks at the analogous circumstances where employees assert a statutory right at their workplace, there are no protections against action short of dismissal for such cases. But what evidence is there that victimization—a detriment—of this type occurs? We know of none.
Likewise, if one looks at the position of the bulk of the working population who are currently covered by voluntary grievance procedures, do we see much, if any, evidence that employees are disciplined for using those procedures? I think that the answer to that must be "no".
It follows that there is no evidence to suggest that those new protections against detriment are needed. If, in the light of experience, the issue arises on any scale in practice, then the Government can reconsider the position. But, from the evidence so far available, there are no sound reasons for adding to the existing list of protections in the 1996 Act.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can answer two questions. First, in relation to his first argument—namely, that the situations which our amendments aim to cover are covered by the protection of a worker not being victimised for asserting statutory rights—I am sorry to have to set this matter out, but my noble friend did not set it out in detail and it is necessary to put the question to him.
The right not to be victimised for asserting statutory rights is, I am sure he will agree, set out in Section 104 of the 1996 Act. But the term "statutory rights" does not as he suggested—indeed I think he stated—cover all statutory rights, because for the purpose of that section, subsection (4) sets out which rights are covered. They are:
"(a) any right conferred by this Act".
That does not cover our amendments which are about the 2002 Bill's rights and opportunities.
"(b) the right conferred by section 86 of this Act",
That is not what we are dealing with.

659
"(c) the rights conferred by sections 68, 86, 146, 168, 169 and 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992"
That is not what our amendments are about. The last one is:
"(d) the rights conferred by the working time regulations 1998".
If the Minister's brief had set out what "statutory rights" means in respect of the right not to be dismissed for asserting a statutory right, he would have known that that section is totally irrelevant for the matters raised by our amendments. How he can rely on it is extraordinary in view of the misstatement of law which such reliance involves. That is the first question.
Secondly, the Minister says that detriment short of dismissal—what his noble and learned friend referred to in the previous debate as an employer who puts a worker on dirty jobs or excludes him from overtime for daring to approach the tribunal—is not needed. That is not by reference to any section, even a bad section as in the first document, but because either it does not happen, or, as I understood him, we need not bother about it; it will be dealt with in some uncertain way by voluntary procedures.
If the Minister looks at Schedule 4 to the Bill, which he or one of his ministerial colleagues defended so strenuously, he will see the list of detriment provisions to stop employers victimising workers for trying to enforce their rights under specific Acts. They are: the Race Relations Act 1976; the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the National Minimum Wage Act 1998; the Working Time Regulations 1998; and so on. They are all listed in Schedule 4. We are trying to insert a provision in the Bill to stop workers being victimised by actions short of dismissal for the purpose of their rights under the Bill and their opportunity to go to a tribunal. How can the Minister possibly say that there is no need for such protection under the Bill?
So, first, will the Minister withdraw his reliance on Section 104 of the 1996 Act? Secondly, will he tell us why protection against victimisation for action short of dismissal is unnecessary?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am in danger of exceeding the rules of Report stage. I can only respond briefly by saying that I did not claim that all cases of protection against dismissal involve statutory rights. If my noble friend reads what I said in Hansard, he will find that I said that there are some complaints that do not involve statutory rights. I argued that there could be cases, even where there is no statutory right, in which, although a tribunal would normally, in our considered judgment, be unlikely to consider it reasonable for an employer to dismiss an employee simply because he raised a concern with his employer, an employee could legitimately be dismissed for vexatious behaviour that was not concerned with a statutory right.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, under which section?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that I have already exceeded the rules of debate. I shall of
660
course write to my noble friend about the questions that he raises, which he could have raised in his first intervention.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I find it disappointing that my noble friend the Minister has said little different from what was said in Grand Committee. I still do not understand why it is apparently felt reasonable to have a "no detriment" clause in other legislation, including the legislation that I have just cited. The Tax Credits Bill has a lengthy schedule entitled, "Rights of employees", which includes a no detriment clause, including cover in respect of dismissal. If anyone seeks to secure his right to tax credits and feels that he is being victimised for trying to pursue it, that lengthy schedule gives him cover.
There is no cover in the Bill and there has been no adequate response to our submissions today or in Grand Committee. I am sorry that that is the case because in Grand Committee the Minister went some way in expressing sympathy for the case we advanced, As has been said, he promised to write to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. He also said that he would copy the letter to everyone else who took part in the. Committee,
"and my letter will include a reflection on the matters that I am asked to reflect on".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col. CWH 3741]
I should welcome a copy of the letter that the Minister has just promised to send to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course, my Lords.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in the meantime, with great regret, I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. It is a good amendment; it is well drafted—the Minister himself acknowledged that—and it is a reasonable amendment in the circumstances. I do not understand why employees who are covered by the Bill should not have the benefit of a no detriment clause, as already exists in other legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Fixed-term work]:
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 111
Page 49, line 7, leave out "employees" and insert "workers"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, shall speak also to Amendment No. 114, with which it is grouped. The purpose of these amendments is to return to our discussion in Grand Committee. They would extend the rights of an employee against discrimination to fixed-term workers who are not also employees and so, we submit, give proper effect to European Directive 1999/70/EC. I am not entirely clear from our discussion in Grand Committee—we shall await with interest what the Minister has to say—whether the Government do not believe that the provision should extend to fixed-term workers who are

661
not also employees or whether they think that the clause as drafted provides sufficient cover for fixed-term workers.
We believe that the clause as drafted and what we know about the regulations to be made under it relate specifically to employees—that is, individuals who have entered into or worked under a contract of employment. That is insufficient to give effect to the directive because it does not cover the broader category of workers.
I shall not repeat our discussion in Grand Committee about how Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines workers, but I assure noble Lords that it does. In that section, as the class of "employee" is entirely enclosed within the class of "workers", extending the coverage to "workers", as I propose, would cover all "employees" as well.
Directive 1999/70/EC itself gives effect to the ETUC-UNICE-CEEP framework agreement on fixed-term work. As the Minister will be aware, clause 2 of that agreement provides that it should apply to,
"fixed term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreement or practice in each Member State".
Clause 3 of the framework agreement defines a "fixed term worker" as,
"a person having an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employee and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event".
So it appears that the framework agreement is intended to include workers who are not also employees. We submit that limiting Clause 45 to employees means that it does not give effect to the framework agreement incorporated in the directive. In Clause 45 the Government are legislating to implement the directive.
There are two issues here: first, do the Government intend to include fixed-term workers under the Bill in addition to employees? If not, why not, because the directive requires it? Secondly, if the Government claim that the clause as drafted covers both categories—fixed-term workers and employees—we believe that that is wrong. In those circumstances, incorporating Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 would do the job more felicitously. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. In Grand Committee, I spoke to a similar amendment and I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said. I am concerned that certain types of worker will be excluded from the Bill's provisions—in particular, people working on short-term contracts in the construction industry, who used to be called workers on the lump. They were supposed to be self-employed but in reality were not. They should be covered by the Bill. I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 111 and 114 seek to amend Clause 45 by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that would ensure fixed term workers are no less favourably treated than comparable permanent employees. However, I believe that the intention of the amendments is to question the coverage of the entire clause rather than its first paragraph only.
We take the view that in making provision about employees we are fully implementing the European Community fixed term work directive. Let me explain why. As the noble Lord rightly said, the directive requires us to legislate in respect of,
"fixed term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by national law and/or practice".
It is clear from these words that this is not a case where there is a single, Community-wide meaning of "worker"; therefore the UK can choose its own definition provided that it is defensible. The use of the word "worker" in the directive does not mean that the UK must implement in respect of all workers.
We take the view, both on underlying legal principles and precedent from the UK's existing employment legislation, including the implementation of other directives, that it is within the UK's discretion to implement in relation to employees only. In so doing, we would be replicating the coverage of most domestic UK employment rights legislation, including rights related to collective redundancies and European works councils, rights to parental leave and written statements of employment particulars. All of these implement EU directives. We would also be protecting those most likely to have the length of their working relationship determined by reference to time in line with the purpose of the directive.
It has been argued that the reference to "employment contract or relationship" in the directive requires us to cover employment relationships other than contracts of employment. The draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations cover not only employees but also Crown servants, House of Commons and House of Lords staff and certain police officers who are not employees. These categories of person will not necessarily have contracts of employment. Applying the regulations for these employment relationships replicates the coverage of other domestic legislation. The wording in the directive was also used in the parental leave directive. Regulations implementing that directive apply to employees only.
I have seen no evidence that fixed term non-employee workers are being less favourably treated than comparable permanent non-employee workers because they have fixed term employment relationships. It is therefore very difficult to identify any beneficiaries of an extension in the coverage of the regulations.
The key group of workers who might qualify as workers but not as employees are agency workers. As my honourable friend in another place pointed out, the

663
fixed term directive specifically states that it does not apply to temporary agency workers. This does not mean that all other workers are included on the grounds that they are not specifically excluded. In particular, the directive does not cover members of the Armed Forces, but there is no specific exclusion.
As noble Lords will be aware, we are currently conducting a review of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh informed the House on 2nd June, we intend to publish a discussion document on this issue as soon as possible. This will seek views on the current definitions used in employment law and whether there may he a case for extending the coverage of certain rights.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's questions. It is difficult to see who would benefit from the amendment. It is also not timely given that we are currently conducting a review of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights. I hope that that explanation of our thinking is helpful and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I understand his argument that we have a discretion to implement the directive; I understand his argument that there is no European-wide definition of "employee" or "worker"; but I do not understand his argument that we are under no obligation to implement the very clear statement in the directive. The directive states that it covers those under a contract of employment—in British terms, such people are employees—and those in an employment relationship, obviously without a contract of employment. It then states that some of the people under an employment relationship are not included—that is, agency workers, as my noble friend rightly said.
The interpretation which restricts implementation in the British sense to employees is patently defective. Why does my noble friend insist that public money should he wasted on litigation in the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which undoubtedly will be in prospect if the Government fail to implement the directive in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggests in his amendment?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is quite clear that we have been given different legal advice. The terms of the directive state:
"fixed term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by national law and/or practice".
That seems perfectly in keeping with the line we are taking.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for his intervention. He said very much what I intended to say in responding to what the Minister said. When moving the amendment I suspected that, ultimately, this would come down to differing legal interpretations of the directive and the clause.
664
I understand the Minister's confirmation that the Government are reviewing the whole issue of what "employment" means. I welcome that because I suspect—as I am sure that various of the Minister's noble friends suspect—that there are genuine employees out there who are required to work either as fixed term workers or as self-employed when the real nature of their relationship is one of employment. It is that group of "quasi" employees to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred. I am concerned about the effect that this Bill and the absence of protection will have on them.
The noble Baroness referred to people in the building and construction industry who are "on the lump". I suspect that even in modern, high-technology industries there are equivalent people who are in reality employees but are on fixed-term contracts. Under the current drafting of the clause, those people would not be protected. Dare I say it while looking straight at the cameras, there are probably many people in the television and media world who are equally affected. Having said that, I shall read what the Minister said between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 50, line 8, at end insert—
"() No regulation made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) shall exceed the requirements of Directive 99/70/EC or any amendment, modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 112, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 113, 115, 116 and 117 even though they appear in three different groupings. I have made sure that the Minister knows that I shall be speaking to these amendments together. There is an error in the way the amendments were grouped.
Amendments Nos. 112 and 116 are identical, one applying to fixed term work in England, Scotland and Wales and the other to Northern Ireland. Clause 45(4)(a) and Clause 46(4)(a) each enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the implementation of the European Council Directive 99/70/EC, which relates to terms and conditions of employment for fixed term work. It is right that the Secretary of State should have such a power. However, experience since 1997 has shown us that the Government frequently take EC directives and gold plate them—that is, they make them more stringent than our international obligations require and put the United Kingdom at a commercial and competitive disadvantage.
Hence, these two amendments, which are specific to, and limited to, the regulations made under subsection (4). They require the Secretary of State not to make regulations purporting to comply with the EC directive but which in fact exceed the requirements; of that directive.

665
The opening words of both Clause 45(4)(a) and Clause 46(4)(a) read as follows:
"for the purpose of implementing Council Directive 99/70/EC".
That is the objective to which the Government should stick. But the Government give the game away in the Explanatory Notes, which state:
"The Government takes the view that, on account of its legal base, this directive does not apply to pay and pensions … the Government intends to prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees, in addition to implementing directive 1999/70/EC".
Let me repeat those words:
"in addition to implementing [the] directive".
As I pointed out in Committee, that is in direct contradiction to the phrase in Clauses 45(4)(a) and 46(4)(b). This is not the time or place to go into the matter in greater detail. Elsewhere, I shall propose an amendment that will ensure fair play for fixed-term employees, with a minimum of regulation, and nothing further is needed.
The Minister ignored this point in his reply in Committee. He simply said:
"Other EU member states have already stopped or are expected soon to stop pay discrimination against fixed-term employees".—[Official Report, 11/4/02; col. CWH 513.]
That is not the point. They are not doing it under the pretext of complying with the directive; and, as I have said, my Amendments Nos. 113 and 117, to which I shall speak next, resolve the problem with a degree of legislative succinctness that the Government would do well to emulate.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 117 again apply in tandem to England, Scotland and Wales under Clause 45 and to Northern Ireland under Clause 46. The provision is one of absolute simplicity. In exchange for the Government not gold-plating the EC directive, these two amendments stipulate that an employee on a fixed-term contract shall not be deemed to he treated less favourably than other employees if he receives money or money's worth in lieu of the benefits received by permanent employees of the same employer which cannot reasonably and practicably be accorded him.
I have mentioned the impossibility of admitting an employee to a company pension scheme when he will be working for the employer for only a couple of months. Annual holiday, a company car, even an invitation to the annual outing may all be impossible to give to a temporary employee—one who is perhaps engaged as a locum for a permanent employee who is taking his paternity or adoption leave.
I have proposed that recompense for the absence of such benefits should be compensated for, but I believe that it would be right to do so by cash or money's worth. It is very simple. A fixed-term employee who is dissatisfied with the cash compensation he is offered still has exactly the same remedy before the employment tribunal as any other employee whose rights under this legislation are not complied with.
It would certainly be a lot easier for employee and employer alike—who are the only two people involved—to calculate the employee's rights and to
666
put a cash value on them. That would save the Government from attempting to produce a large number of highly prescriptive and impractical regulations, many of which—for example, in relation to pensions—will be impossible to enforce. It is not practical for an employer to give someone working for him for a very short period the same advantages as an employee who is in the pension scheme.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 115, which seeks to add a further subsection to Clause 45, which I imagine would become subsection (7). Before speaking to the amendment, I should mention that there is not a similar amendment down to Clause 46 dealing with Northern Ireland. If the Minister were to accept the amendment, naturally we could introduce a suitable further amendment to Clause 46 at Third Reading—not that I have any great hopes that the Minister will accept my amendment. I cannot believe that he has not accepted a single amendment that I have tabled through the long and lengthy process on this Bill.
Clause 45 sets out detailed rights for a fixed-term employee and detailed machinery for implementing them. I acknowledge that one of the purposes of these provisions is to prevent unscrupulous employers from using a series of consecutive short fixed-term contracts to deprive an employee of certain of his legal rights.
However, some people voluntarily take up fixed-term employment for a variety of reasons, frequently to suit their own convenience or personal circumstances. In the same way, employers often take on employees for fixed terms for genuine commercial reasons—to carry out a specific project, for example; to set up a computer or book-keeping system; to handle a particular piece of work for a client; or to replace a permanent employee who is temporarily away.
Assuming that the employer is genuinely acting in good faith and is employing someone on a fixed-term contract, and then decides that he would like to employ him permanently, he should be able to make an offer of permanent employment under the stringent conditions set out in the proposed new subsection, leaving that employee to decide for himself whether he does or does not want the job. If he takes it, then he should get the same benefits as the other permanent employees, which is what this provision aims to give him. If he chooses to stick to his fixed term for his own reasons, clearly he cannot have his cake and eat it; he cannot stick to his fixed term and continue to enjoy the new privileges being granted to fixed-term employees. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall deal with all the amendments the noble Baroness has put forward, beginning with Amendments Nos. 112 and 116. These amendments would have the effect of preventing the regulations under Clauses 45 and 46 from imposing any obligations beyond those required by the EC fixed term work directive. This would mean that the regulations made under the clauses would allow employers to pay their fixed-term employees less

667
than their permanent staff and give them less favourable pension rights, just because they were on fixed-term contracts. This could encourage employers to pay their fixed-term employees less than permanent ones, even where they do not currently do so.
In our view, the fixed term directive does not require us to prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees. The noble Baroness quoted words which she said gave the game away; she said that we were acting under the pretext of implementing the directive. There is no question of "giving the game away"; there is no question of doing this under the pretext of implementing the directive. If that were the situation, primary legislation would not be required. I believe that everyone in this House will he able to recognise that we are doing it under primary legislation for just this reason. We are quite open. We want to include this provision because we believe that it is the right thing to do.
Following a full public consultation last year on the implementation of the directive, we had evidence of pay disparities between fixed-term and permanent employees and anecdotal evidence that fixed-term employees had been excluded from pensions even though they had been employed on a series of fixed-term contracts for many years and would no doubt have benefited from pension provision. This evidence, I believe, justifies using primary legislation to prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees.
I am aware that the noble Baroness has some concerns about the operation of the regulations if pay and pensions are covered.
The draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 on which we recently consulted do not necessarily require fixed-term employees to be admitted to occupational pensions schemes; they simply require that fixed-term employees are not less favourably treated than comparable permanent employees. I believe that these regulations will help to ensure that employers no longer refuse fixed-term employees access to an occupational pension scheme purely because they are on a fixed-term contract.
Some employers may have objective reasons that justify denying fixed-term employees access to a pension scheme and can therefore exclude them. Others may seek to ensure that a fixed-term employee's overall employment package is not less favourable than that of a comparable permanent employee. The regulations also allow for that situation. There will be situations where an employer will he able to justify excluding an employee on a short-term contract from an occupational pension scheme if including him has disproportionate cost and/ or is of no benefit to him.
This will not mean that employers have to offer alternative compensation or change established pension schemes to meet special needs of fixed-term employees. It is important that an appropriate balance between business requirements and employee protection is struck and that fixed-term employees'
668
access to pensions is considered on a case by case basis. We believe that the draft fixed-term regulations achieve this balance by minimising burdens on employers and ensuring fairness for employees. Employers may also find that they offer fixed-term employees access to an occupational pension scheme, but the employees may choose not to enter that scheme as they anticipate that it will not benefit them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also asked at what point a fixed-term employee can gain access to a pension scheme. The answer is that employers will need to look at what point they offer pensions to their permanent employees. The fixed-term regulations require that any period of service qualifications for benefits, including pensions, should be the same for fixed-term employees as for permanent employees unless a different period can be objectively justified. Employers will not therefore be required to offer fixed-term employees access to schemes at an earlier point than they would offer access to permanent employees.
It is probably worth noting here that, when we transposed the part-time work directive, we also decided to cover pay and pensions, despite our view that this was not a requirement of the directive. Fixed-term employees are in a similar position to part-time ones. They work for the same employer as comparable permanent or full-time employees but have a different contractual arrangement. Fixed-term employees have an important part to play in our labour market and they are entitled to a fair deal.
As I explained in Grand Committee, giving fixed-term employees a fair deal by preventing pay and pensions discrimination will not place UK business at a competitive disadvantage compared with European counterparts. Most other EU member states have already stopped pay discrimination against fixed-term employees and we expect others to do so in the near future. Preventing pay and pensions discrimination will protect about 1.2 million fixed-term employees in Britain. We do not see why British fixed-term employees should he treated as second class.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 113 and 117. As they have the same aim, I shall speak to them together. These amendments would mean that regulations on fixed-term work have to provide that fixed-term employees are not considered to be "treated less favourably" if they receive an adequate amount of money or money's worth in lieu of benefits received by permanent employees of the same employer which cannot reasonably and practically be accorded to them. I shall explain why I consider this amendment to be unnecessary and why it is not the best way to introduce the flexibility which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seeks for employers and employees.
Such amendment is unnecessary because the draft fixed-term regulations—on which we recently consulted, and a copy of which has been placed in the Library—already achieve the aim of this amendment. The means of applying the equal treatment principle to fixed-term employees is best dealt with in regulations, and the powers in Clauses 45 and 46 allow this to be

669
done in a flexible manner. Subsection (2)(c) of both Clauses 45 and 46 states that regulations may,
"specify circumstances in which employees in fixed-term employment are to be taken to be, or not to be, treated less favourably than employees in permanent employment".
The noble Baroness seems to be concerned that the enabling powers in Clauses 45 and 46 would require the Secretary of State to regulate every term of a fixed-term employee's contract. This is certainly not the case. The powers as currently drafted allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which will allow a fixed-term employee's benefits to be looked at "in the round" when considering whether he is being less favourably treated than a permanent employee. The draft regulations already do this. They provide that less favourable treatment of a fixed-term employee is permitted if it is justified on objective grounds. The regulations specifically provide that where the value of a fixed-term employee's total package of employment conditions is equal to or higher than that of a comparable permanent employee, less favourable treatment in respect of one or more employment conditions will be objectively justified.
This means that employers can balance a less favourable condition with a more favourable one. For example, an employer and a fixed-term employee may agree that the employee would not benefit from access to an occupational pension scheme, but should receive a higher salary instead. Alternatively, the employer could pay the fixed-term employee a higher salary to compensate him for having fewer days' paid holiday than a comparable permanent employee, provided he received at least four weeks' paid annual leave per year in accordance with the working time regulations.
Alternatively, the draft regulations provide that employers need not give fixed-term employees a particular benefit—and will not be obliged to compensate them for it by alternative means—if excluding them is objectively justified. Where fixed-term employees are on very short contracts, their exclusion from an occupational pension scheme may be objectively justified, for example. I am not convinced that the amendments would allow less favourable treatment where it is objectively justified. Since objective justification is provided for in the directive, the proposed amendments could be described as gold-plating.
I turn to Amendment No. 115. The intention of this amendment seems to be that the regulations made under Clause 45 should not apply to fixed-term employees who have been offered suitable permanent employment at any point in their employment and refused the offer. This would mean that the Government fail to comply with their European Community obligations and incorrectly implement the EC fixed-term work directive.
I am extremely concerned that there is a risk that employers could ask fixed-term employees early on in their contracts to accept permanent jobs knowing full well that the fixed-term employee will reject such an offer, the possible bonus of this for unscrupulous employers being that the fixed-term regulations would no longer apply. The fundamental provision of the regulations—"preventing discrimination against
670
fixed-term employees"—would no longer apply to those who have chosen not to accept a permanent position, and it would also mean that the provisions in the regulations limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts would be invalid. An employer could therefore continue to employ a fixed-term employee on an endless series of fixed-term contracts, something which the fixed-term work directive specifically aims to prevent.
Allowing fixed-term employees to sign away their right to a permanent job would really be allowing them to sign away protection under fixed-term regulations. I am very concerned that it would cause there to be a loophole that allowed the regulations to be circumvented. That would put off students, older people and parents from working on a fixed-term basis.
The EC fixed-term work directive confers certain rights on all fixed-term employees. These include the right not to be treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees and not to be employed on a succession of fixed-term contracts, which is abusive. These rights apply to all fixed-term employees, with a couple of exceptions permitted by the directive, regardless of whether they have been offered or refused permanent employment. This amendment would result in inadequate implementation of the directive by allowing fixed-term employees to sign away their rights to a fair deal.
I hope that the noble Baroness accepts my explanation of why these amendments should not be pressed and that she kindly withdraws Amendment No. 112.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, at this point I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Work-focused interviews for partners]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 118:
Page 57. line 15, at end insert "connected with types of employment suitable for that person"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 49 makes full entitlement to a number of benefits conditional upon work-focused interviews for a partner. Regulations may make provision for a requirement for the partner of a claimant to take part in a work-focused interview as a condition of benefit continuing to be payable to the claimant. Among the benefits which could be adversely affected if the partner does not comply are not only income support and jobseeker's allowance but also incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance.
I sought amendments to this clause in Committee. I have very strong misgivings about this provision, and these were not assuaged by the reply given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Bassam, the

671
Minister. Nor am I alone in having doubts about the clause. NACAB has voiced some concerns, as have a number of other organisations.
Of course, the Government maintain that this measure is not intended to bring pressure to bear on the partners of claimants to accept employment. It is simply a question of letting people know what opportunities for employment are available. The Government will no doubt maintain that the intentions are entirely benign. I am sure they are. However, I doubt that they will be seen in that light by claimants and partners. There may be very good reasons why a claimant's partner does not want to accept employment: there may be children to be cared for; there may be children with disabilities or behavioural problems; the couple may take the entirely laudable decision that one of them should devote himself or herself to a child.
Of course, the Government have claimed, as they did in Committee, that benefit will be adversely affected only in a minority of cases, and then that not all the benefit, but only a percentage of it, will be lost. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to 20 per cent. But people who are dependent on benefit are poor anyway, and the loss of even a part of it is a serious matter.
I do not like this clause at all. Why should a claimant risk losing benefit simply because his or her partner fails to attend for an interview? However, we seek, as we have throughout our discussion on this Bill, to be constructive, and our amendment simply seeks to soften the impact of it. We say that the work-focused interview should be connected only with types of employment suitable for that person, so that there should he no pressure on people to take whatever employment is available simply in order to reduce the benefit that would otherwise be paid. Clearly, it would cover the position of anyone responsible for the care of young children. That is one of the aims of this amendment.
I hope that the Government have given further thought to the arguments that we advanced in Committee and are now able to respond sympathetically to our amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we are considering three amendments under Clause 49. It may save the time of the House if I make remarks relating to all three amendments—otherwise, I may have to repeat the same points three times and the House may become a little tired of that.
This is one of a series of measures that the Government seek to introduce, dealing with the withdrawal or partial withdrawal of the right to social security benefit. We have considered it for some time. As a party, our position on it is clear. The Government justify it on the ground of linking rights and responsibilities. They say that the right to receive benefit carries with it the responsibility to look for work. Taken in isolation, that is not a particularly controversial statement. The trouble is that
672
responsibilities are a whole cat's-cradle of different matters that relate to each other. To take one relationship between rights and responsibilities in isolation is a little like taking a single stitch out of a garment and trying to exhibit it in a museum—you end up making a little bit of a mess.
Over and above any responsibility that recipients of benefit may have to look for work is the over-arching responsibility of the state to protect those whom it governs. The responsibility of the state is to preserve the lives of its subjects. It has been agreed since at least 1601, and probably a good deal longer, that that responsibility does not extend only to providing external defence. It also involves a responsibility to protect people against the effects of famine, poverty and other matters that may threaten their lives. If we take that away, we deprive the subjects concerned of that which binds them to a contract to obey the state. In fact, we turn them into outlaws. That can be an imprudent process.
Therefore, granted that the state is entitled to some sanction against those on benefit to abuse their position, that sanction must fall short of any measure that lowers them below the subsistence level. It is, therefore, a little unfortunate that the Government have absolutely no idea what the subsistence level actually is. The present level of benefits is based on work done by Beveridge, extrapolated in 1948 from work that he had done before the war. Any relevance to present standards of poverty levels or subsistence levels is, therefore, almost purely coincidental.
We have previously debated this point on social security Bills. An amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on the need to research a minimum income. Our party policy is that when that research has been done, there will be a case for reducing benefits, where people misbehave, clown to the level of the minimum income, but no lower. That is a vital distinction. At present, the Government cannot tell us whether or not they are meeting that condition. That is one fairly serious objection to the proposal in this clause.
The Minister may tell us that it is only such-andsuch a percentage and therefore does not matter, but she will not know whether what she says is true. She will hope that it is, but she will not have any solid research base on which she can rest it. For this Minister, that is something rather unusual, and one would imagine that she must find that a little uncomfortable. The Minister shakes her head. I await her reply with a great deal of interest. She will have to justify that shake of the head.
The other question to be considered is the effect of the introduction of a measure of this kind. We should not introduce any measure without understanding roughly what kind of effect it is likely to have. On that, so far as I can understand, we simply have not the first idea, because we have not the first shred of information.
There are two theories on what may be the effect of disentitlement to benefit. One is the short, sharp shock theory—that it will make people wake up, pull up their

673
socks, pull themselves together, get themselves a job, and the whole list of slogans that go with it. I may describe the other as the theory of throwing out the lifeboat—that it leaves people to drown. Until we have clear research evidence taken from a reasonable sample of people who have been subjected to disentitlement to benefit, we have no idea which of those theories is the case. To introduce a measure such as this, without any idea of its likely effects, is politically irresponsible.
We have a certain amount of anecdotal evidence, which indicates that it may cause extreme distress. However, we have no research about the level of debt among people on benefit. The Reverend Paul Nicholson keeps drawing our attention to this subject, which is the cause of a great many uncomfortable proceedings in magistrates' courts. We have no information on whether there is any connection between disentitlement to benefit and the level of indictable offences. We have one study, carried out by the University of Wales for South Glamorgan Tech, which discovered that among those in South Glamorgan aged 16 or 17 and not on income support, the word "shopping" means shoplifting. That may create a suspicion that such measures represent a temptation to increase crime. It would be nice to know whether that is actually the case. By itself, it is a slender piece of evidence, but it raises a question that deserves an answer.
We have no information on the correlation between disentitlement to benefit and the level of hospital admissions. We have no information on the correlation with the level of suicides. Only from private research by Crisis do we know that 347 people died among the homeless on the streets of London in 1993. I am fairly certain that your Lordships will not find that in any figures from the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government are therefore asking us to buy a pig in a poke.
We have here three different amendments. The first one, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has just spoken, invokes the other end of the network of rights and responsibilities, which is a part of the principle of subsidiarity. My right honourable friend Mr Kennedy has said that the way in which we raise our children is a private matter, not the state's business, and that the state is not the most competent judge of when and in what circumstances people are capable of going off and doing a job and the children are capable of flourishing. The state cannot judge whether the childcare facilities and the journey to work are compatible. Only those who are doing it every morning can judge whether they are two compatible journeys.
I shall not again remind the Minister of the speech made in our debate on single parents by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside. It was a moving speech. She remembers it perfectly well and I shall not take her through it again. But this lower end of the network of rights and responsibilities, which is implied in the words of the amendment about work "suitable" for the persons concerned, is also vital. So what the
674
Government have done is taken one particular bit of the network of rights and responsibilities and attempted to isolate it from all the rest as if the rest did not exist. You really cannot do that; it does not work. Our amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Razzall would exempt from that those who receive all the various disability benefits.
Here, again, what people with a disability or a physical handicap can do is in the last resort something only they can answer. Very often when one knows people who are subject to a disability, one is equally surprised both by the things that they can do and by the things that they cannot do. We cannot know exactly how much pain a particular series of manoeuvres causes to someone with a bad back. We cannot know how regularly they are able to do something which they may be able to do occasionally. In the end these must be matters for individual judgment; they cannot be matters for conscription. So, again, here the authority of the state is limited. That is the thinking behind our amendment.
We also have a considerable degree of sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, to leave out Clause 49 altogether. But I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, speak on that in due course.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support my noble friend. In doing so, having made my remarks on the amendment we are discussing, I do not propose to repeat them on the following amendment. It is obviously a matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, whether she wishes to add her remarks at this point. As my noble friend indicated, three different ways are proposed in which to amend the clause. I shall not repeat the argument other than to say that, like my noble friend, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness's amendment. Indeed, I initially toyed with tabling such a provision but, having seen the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I decided to press the Government at this stage to see whether they were prepared to make any concessions, with the possibility of returning to an amendment to eliminate Clause 49 altogether on Third Reading. However, that is obviously a tactical matter.
I should like to add to what my noble friend said. He was untypically kind to the Government, if I may say so. To use the phrase that we hear so often from the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I find it absolutely incredible that the Government should attempt to insert Clause 49 in this particular Bill. The interchange that will take place between my noble friend and the Minister will indicate why the clause is entirely inappropriate in an employment Bill. Although I know quite a lot about employment law, as, indeed, do many noble Lords who are present, I find myself completely incapable of understanding the clause. The requisite knowledge that is necessary in order to make a decent fist of understanding Clause 49 is such that it properly belongs not in the Employment Bill and not in a Bill brought forward from the DTI but in a Bill brought forward from the department of the noble

675
Baroness, Lady Hollis. I defy most noble Lords who have expertise on the Employment Bill to have the necessary expertise to scrutinise the clause properly.
It is significant that neither the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, nor the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, feels qualified to respond to Clause 49 and that a Minister from another department is brought in in order to do that. It is for that reason that I encourage my noble friend to come in our side. To say that it is an abuse of the procedure is going too far, but it is entirely inappropriate that the clause has been plucked out in the way that it has. Presumably it is on the agenda of matters that the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wanted to introduce, and some bright civil servant spotted the fact that it could be tacked on to the Employment Bill. I do not think that that is the way to legislate.
As I say, I support the noble Baroness's amendment and I have produced my own amendment. I suspect that unless the Government are prepared to make concessions, I shall ultimately at the last ditch, or even at the last stitch, be forced to support the abolition of the clause entirely. However, I shall see how matters proceed.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. I could follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that I should at this point speak to Amendment No. 120. However, I shall not be tempted to do so simply because the Minister's response to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 may enable me to cut short my remarks on Amendment No. 120. I do not want to keep on repeating the same remarks and I am sure that noble Lords, much as they like my remarks, do not want to hear them again and again. As I say, I most definitely support Amendments Nos. 118 and 119.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I take it that there will a separate set of speeches on Amendment No. 119 as it is not grouped with Amendment No. 118; otherwise, I shall be happy to run my remarks together—
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I hope that I may assist the noble Baroness. I indicated that I had addressed my remarks to Amendment No. 118. I shall formally move Amendment No. 119 later.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was working this morning on the basis of the Marshalled List. However, perhaps I can move across the amendments. I remind your Lordships what Clause 49 does. It calls to interview after six months the partners of those on IS, JSA, IB, SDA and ICA to explore various opportunities. That is it. I hope that I do not disappoint the noble Lord too much, but as he knows my answers in advance I do not think that he will be deeply disappointed or deeply surprised when I say
676
that I shall not be enticed into a debate on the adequacy of benefits and the legitimacy of sanctions. I do not think that it is appropriate to do so.
However, what I want to emphasise, first, is that what we are proposing is standard practice for those on JSA. More importantly, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, approved by Parliament. already ensures that those who receive disability benefits or carer benefits attend an interview. This clause extends that call to interview to the partners of those on disability benefits or on ICA—partners who are not themselves disabled and partners who are not themselves carers. Parliament has already agreed that if someone is disabled, he or she should none the less attend a work-focused interview in order to explore the opportunities available. It cannot be sensible that the disabled person attends but a carer who is only a part-time carer because he or she is not themselves on ICA. perhaps caring for 10 or 1.5 hours a week, or perhaps not caring at all, who may have a far more realistic opportunity of contemplating work, should not be called to the interview. Alternatively, as we do now, we can bring in a carer who is receiving ICA and looking after an elderly parent for 35 hours a week. However, at present, we do not bring in her non-working husband, who perhaps is doing nothing at all. He mar be 49 years-old, fit and well but is neither working nor caring.
My first point is that we already bring to an interview those who are furthest away from the labour market—that is, the disabled person or the full-time carer. Therefore, I am puzzled that anyone should object to our calling to an interview those who are nearer to the labour market—that is, the partners who may have no impediment whatever to entering the labour market in due course.
My second point concerns whether the work-focused interviews are of any value. I know, because I have sat in on many of them, that such interviews do help to keep people attached to the labour market. Your Lordships know that, in order to get a job, one already needs to have a job or to live with someone who has a job. Obtaining a job is not a matter of a visit to the job centre; it is about knowledge of the labour market. The more one lives among a community of unemployed people, the less likely one is to know about the existence of a job, even if it only a few streets away in a London borough.
At the work-focused interviews at which I have been present, they not only discuss work opportunities but benefits; for example, housing benefits and some of the linking rules. They discuss the relevance of voluntary organisations, which might be helpful, for example, if someone is caring for a person with Alzheimer's disease. They might talk about pension prospects and the state second pension. But they also talk about training opportunities—for example, the right to learn IT skills free of charge at the local college in order to improve one's prospects of obtaining a job.
They also discuss job opportunities, help with interview skills, guidance on childcare facilities, and the better-off calculation, taking into account the new

677
tax credits. If someone learns that, as a result of going into work, they may be £80 a week better off than when receiving benefit, I believe that we would consider that to be a useful piece of information. Given the inevitable complexity of tax credits, it is not the type of calculation that people can make for themselves on the back of an envelope. If they could, they would already be employable by the financial services industry. Most people do not have that knowledge-base. In a work-focused interview, they can obtain that type of information and it will help to inform their choices. The interviews are positive, helpful and unthreatening.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have visited one of the new jobcentre plus offices which are being rolled out across the country next year. I can assure noble Lords that they are full of stripped-pine floors, comfortable sofas in navy and deep red and pleasantly angled desks. They are a cross between a building society and an airport executive lounge. Lone parents and disabled people have invariably said to me—noble Lords may say, "Well, they would, wouldn't they"—how helpful the interviews were. They have said that, even if they do not wish to return to work straight away, it is helpful to know how to set about doing so when they are ready.
That brings me to my third point. These are opportunity interviews. No one—not even the fit and well non-working husband of a carer—is required to work following the interviews. They are not receiving JSA. But we know that most people want to work when they feel they are ready, and the interviews help them to make informed choices. They may help them to overcome the barriers that they perceive to stand in their way.
In that case, one might ask: why make such interviews compulsory? Three years ago, I held the same view. I believed that they should be voluntary and I opposed compulsory interviews backed by sanctions. I have changed my mind on the basis of evidence, as I believe I should. The same difficulties that inhibit people in finding a job often inhibit them in taking the first step, which is to attend an interview.
Quite simply, when interviews are voluntary, the people to whom we most want to reach out in order to help do not come. When we first piloted the ONE scheme, people thought that the interviews were compulsory and a condition of benefit, and they turned up. When they learnt that the interviews were voluntary, the numbers fell away dramatically and they did not attend.
Obviously if interviews are to be compulsory, they must have a modest sanction. A compulsory interview without a sanction is not compulsory; it is voluntary. But the sanction is proportional and modest. Pace the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it is 20 per cent of the single person's allowance. That means that if a person did not have children but was receiving IB and the average housing benefit, he would have a total income of, say, £202.45. At 20 per cent of the single adult allowance, the sanction would be £10.79, or just over 5 per cent of that person's household income.
678
Of course, the sanction would end the moment the person walked through the office door. And it would not be applied until at least three attempts had been made to contact the person and until after personal contact with him had been made by telephone or through a home visit to ensure that letters were not being delivered to an empty house. Equally—I can enlarge on the matter if your Lordships wish-there is a shopping list of decent and reasonable good cause.
Thus far, I have no evidence that deferring a work-focused interview on the grounds of good cause has been a problem among our client groups. I believe that your Lordships will have gathered, as my noble friend said, that calling people to work-focused interviews not to make them work but to enable them to have the information that they need to make informed choices is helpful and benign. It is a matter of information and the knowledge network. Many people on benefits do not have that knowledge and therefore cannot make the necessary choices.
That brings me, finally, to the point of Amendment No. 118. The amendment seeks to ensure that a person is not called to an interview unless the interviewer already knows that suitable jobs are available. But how on earth does anyone know that? The personal adviser or the interviewer will not know, and it is probable that the person attending the interview will not know either. We are not talking here about Lawyers and doctors, who have a fairly clear idea of what their job will be; we are talking about men and also, largely, women who have all types of skills but often not much work experience.
I remember talking to one woman who was receiving ICA and who had cared for her elderly mother for years but had little formal education. Her mother died. The woman was isolated, lonely, depressed and poor. She believed that she was unemployable until, at a work-focused interview, it was pointed out that she had precisely the type of experience and skills appropriate to working in a residential care home. She is now the assistant manager of a care home and says that we have helped her into a new life. Yet, until the work-focused interview, she considered that she was unemployable.
I also met a man who had had a fairly skilled heavy-manufacturing job. The jobs had gone. He was 52 years-old and resigned to being unemployed for the rest of his life. He wondered whether somehow—this is why he came to the interview—he could receive higher benefits, possibly by providing evidence of a disability. However, like most men, he had a driving licence. We paid for his driving lessons as an HGV driver. He is now busy, happy, employed and very appreciative of the help that he received.
The point is that, while many noble Lords may indeed have stayed in the same type of job all their lives and know what is out there in the marketplace, that is not true of many people who receive benefit. Without such an interview, they will not know where the skills that they have could take them—that is particularly true for women—or, as with IT, what new skills they could acquire if they so chose.

679
A man to whom I was close had, during his lifetime, worked as a poacher, part-time; a farm labourer, full-time; a fish seller when young; a bus driver on Saturdays; a gardener on Sundays; an unskilled builder when temporarily unemployed; a professional drummer most evenings; a trades union official when his mates were sacked; a parish councillor to extract playing fields from the farmers; a special constable to help out the police; and an MoD van driver in order to obtain a pension. On the basis of the amendment, in advance of meeting him and discussing options with him, how could any interviewer decide whether or not certain types of employment might be available for my father?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am becoming increasingly confused. The amendment states,
"at end insert 'connected with types of employment suitable for that person'".
The Minister appears to believe that, by that, we meant that that person thought it was suitable. That is what she said. Then she asked how one could expect a person to know. We expect the organisation to know, but the intention is not to bother a person with employment which is not suitable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had hoped that my noble friend was listening to me a little more closely. That is precisely why I detailed the range of experience and types of job that a not untypical working-class man had had. How could an interviewer know, in advance of meeting him, what his experiences were and whether, as a result, he could move into a related job or whether he had the skills to port into such a job? That also applies to other working people and to their partners.
The amendment is back to front. Neither the interviewer nor the person being interviewed can possibly know until after the interview whether work is a realistic choice. That is the point of the interview. No one can or should prejudge that in advance. The amendment writes off people. Once a steel worker, always a steel worker. There are no steel worker jobs; therefore no interview; or, worse, if as the wife of the steel worker she is not working, never again will she work so do not bother to call her in. That is cruel, patronising and belongs to a world long lost.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, were to bring the matter back at Third Reading making clear that what was at stake was a job that appeared suitable after interview, would the noble Baroness consider the amendment more favourably? We do not want it turning into a form of conscription.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we already bring into work-focused interviews disabled people—people on a disability benefit some of whom are the furthest away from the labour market. We bring into interview people on a carers' allowance who are working 35 hours a week as a carer. Yet in all
680
seriousness, noble Lords are saying to me that their partners—they may be doing no caring and are fit, healthy and well—should not be brought in for interview to discuss their future options. We bring in the disabled person. We bring in the full-time carer of the disabled person but we do not bring in someone who has no impediment vis-à-vis the labour market. Is that what noble Lords are saying? In that case, there can be no meeting of minds because that is genuinely perverse.
The point about an interview is to explore the option. No compulsion to work follows from that. We know in particular that, for example, for a carer on ICA the average time is about three and a half years. When that benefit ceases, the partner who is piggybacking off that person's benefit will have to go into the labour market but will have lost attachment to the labour market having been denied the opportunity to come into work-focused interviews and the like.
No one can know in advance of the interview what makes good sense for that person. The interview gives the person being called—the partner of someone who is disabled but who is not a full-time carer or the partner of a carer—the information they may need on which to make an informed choice. I think that the work-focused interview gives people hope, opportunity, information and choice. Early findings from our research on work-focused interviews demonstrate that that is what people get from those interviews. I deplore any efforts to deny people the right to the information on which they make choices. I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords. I am not assuaged by the statements from the Front Bench. I return to the query that I posed when moving the amendment. Why should someone on benefit risk losing that benefit because his or her partner fails to show up for a work-focused interview. I fail to see why the claimant's benefit should be put at risk in that way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, it is not a claimant's benefit. It is a family benefit in which the claimant and his partner are receiving a larger benefit than would be the case if there were just one of them. It is their joint benefit and they have a joint commitment to maintain their family standard of living. If it is reasonable—of course, I believe that it is—to pay a benefit on a family basis, if there is no impediment, it is not unreasonable to call members of that family in to see whether they can benefit from a work-focused interview.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, again I am not assuaged by that comment. The noble Baroness responded that the interview would be helpful, positive and unthreatening. But the threat is that benefit can be affected. A deduction of 20 per cent matters a great deal to people on benefit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that this is not a matter I'm an employment Bill. It is a social security issue. It' it had been part of a social security Bill we should have had a great deal of interest shown and detailed debate on

681
this section. As it is, the issue is slipped into an employment Bill. In that context, it has not received the necessary scrutiny that it might otherwise have had. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is right. This is not an employment issue; it is a social security issue.
That does not make the situation any better. I believe that the provision should not be in the Bill. We have sought to be supportive and constructive. That is why we tabled an amendment in relation to a suitable type of work so that an individual would not feel that he or she was being intimidated into taking work which was not suitable. I detailed a number of situations in which people would not feel capable of taking work: children, perhaps disabled children, may need to be looked after. There may be other reasons why employment would not be a suitable option for a partner.
There is no point in pressing the amendment at this point in the proceedings. I may well come back to the issue at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 120:
Leave out Clause 49.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to delete the whole of Clause 49 which the Explanatory Note describes as making,
"Full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview for partners".
I thank the Minister for her courtesy in taking the trouble to write to me at some length to explain the background and objectives of the clause; and for stopping me on more than one occasion in the Prince's Chamber to explain it in a little more detail. I hope that she will not consider me churlish when I say that I was not happy with what she told me. I did not understand everything she said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the issue may be more appropriate in a welfare Bill. Some of the initials used by the noble Baroness were unfamiliar to me. I am used to dealing with employment Bills.
In describing the provisions of the clause, I can do no better than to read the first paragraph of the Explanatory Note provided by the department. It states:
"Partners of working age benefit claimants who are themselves of working age will be required to take part in a work-focused interview, in default of which, benefit sanctions will apply. This will provide partners with the opportunity to discuss their skills and experience, the barriers they face in moving closer to the labour market and the help and support that is available to overcome those barriers".
The Explanatory Note continues for another seven paragraphs covering five closely printed pages. I find it difficult to imagine how claimants will be able to find their way through this legislative nightmare. At Second Reading, I said that it was an extremely badly-drafted clause. A partner is defined as a person who is
682
a member of the same couple as the claimant. One then has to discover what "a couple" is. A couple is defined as a married or unmarried couple within the meaning of Part 7 of the Contributions and Benefits Act. That is a sloppy piece of drafting because the correct name of the Act is the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
At Second Reading, I complained about that and invited the Minister to clarify the issue by a drafting amendment but that has not been done. On the contrary, in her courteous letter to me the Minister simply points out that the "Contributions and Benefits Act" means the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in accordance with Section 191 of the Administration Act. For someone who is not familiar with this area, it is quite a long way round to find out what we are talking about.
I was eventually able to find out for myself, with some difficulty, and with the aid of the solicitor who happens to be my partner within the meaning of the Act. That was the only way in which I could sort out what was meant. But how is the average claimant going to do that? I have the greatest admiration for parliamentary draftsmen who usually do a magnificent and complex job under great pressure of time and the weight of vast volumes of legislation. Nevertheless, it is very difficult. Is there not enough paper and ink in the DTI to enable the definitions to be contained within one Act, even repeating definitions in other Acts, in order to save applicants and their advisers from hopping from one Act to another including one which is inadequately named?
Should this clause remain after this debate—I suspect that it will—I hope that the Minister will at least ensure that its provisions in this respect, which apply particularly to applicants who are not lawyers, will be amended to make them self-contained within it. The reason why I said that I believed that the clause would remain is because I said to the noble Baroness that really I wanted information. As I could not get what I wanted in a letter, I have tabled the amendment in order that the noble Baroness can tell the House exactly what the provision means and its effect. I was very glad to see the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, because they have enabled me to cut out quite a great deal of what I was going to say. They have made certain points even though they have not been totally accepted. The Government may like to think again on certain matters.
However, I wish to make two quite short points. We know from the Explanatory Notes that to operate the scheme of work-focused interviews will entail the employment of 650 extra civil servants at an estimated cost of £35 million. With engaging frankness, the Treasury admits that the benefits to the Exchequer cannot be estimated at this time.

683
I accept what the noble Baroness said: that the benefits enable the partner of the claimant to have access to information such as has never happened before, and that the evidence shows that such people are then able to get jobs. Everyone in the House knows, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that the noble Baroness does not say that there is evidence unless it really exists. I am prepared to accept that this has been helpful. I expect that the noble Baroness will say a little more to me about it. If it is so, and if it helps people, the extra civil servants at a cost of £35 million would be justified.
The other point is that the measure does not place any requirement on the partners beyond taking part in the interview. They do not have to seek work. Do they really know that or are they coerced into thinking that they have to look for work? Is it made absolutely clear to them that this measure is there to help them in some way, but that they will not be forced into taking a job? That is a very important issue. It is wrong if the measure is meant to coerce them. One would like to think that everybody who can get a job will do so. I do not believe that we are in the business of forcing people in that regard.
As the noble Baroness knows well, I have always been interested in women's affairs. I suspect that in many cases it would be the woman partner who goes for the interview. Let us suppose that the partner of the man was of the same sex. I do not know if they would be described as "a couple". Would he also be forced to go for the interview? I suspect not. In that case, it seems to me that it is discrimination against heterosexual couples and particularly against women. I hope that I have not put a fly in the ointment for the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was tempted to make only one speech, but since the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, has not grouped this matter with the others, she has given me an opportunity to reply to what the Minister has just said, which I shall take.
My noble friend Lord Razzall accused me of being uncharacteristically kind to the Government. I believe that by now the Minister is able to recognise the appearance of Greeks bearing gifts, so I shall bring her a few more. She talked about the reasons why she changed her mind. She said that she had done so on the basis of evidence. I accept what she says. I believe it is true that certain people may be discouraged and refrain from taking the opportunity to attend a work-focused interview, although perhaps, having attended, they might have discovered things which might help them.
But one has to balance evidence one way against evidence from the other. One has to decide which is the lesser of two evils. That is why I believe that it is a very great pity that the record-keeping of the Department for Work and Pensions has meant that the downside of the evidence arising from this clause, if it should become law, will be permanently concealed from them. They will not know what harm is done by
684
disentitlement to benefit. To be open to the evidence in one direction without being open to it from the other is a somewhat unscholarly procedure.
What the Minister said about partners calls for rather more wide-ranging thought than it has been given. We are in the middle of a very large social change, from a world in which it used to be assumed, or at least hoped for by some who could not actually achieve it, that the world consisted of men who worked and women who stayed at home and looked after children. Those days will not return. But what we do not know is whether we are moving to a world in which the two-income, two-career family is normal or whether we are moving to a pluralistic world in which some families have one earner and some have two. That is a question which is better decided by social evolution than by legislation. It is a question in which the state cannot be particularly authoritative and in which it cannot lay down the law for the great mixture of cultures which we have in this country.
I think of the effect of applying this clause in a Bangladeshi community, for example. It could cause rather more offence than envisaged. It is a piece of social engineering of the sort which all governments are tempted to undertake. But one should not really imitate Oscar Wilde and say that one can resist everything except temptation. Some temptations ought to be resisted and the temptation to impose a uniform pattern of expectation on the relations of the sexes in marriage or partnerships is one of them. We have to let this matter work itself out spontaneously because nothing else is going to be acceptable.
I also hope that the Minister will cease using the argument, "All they have to do is to comply". That is an argument which can be used in defence of any measure, however draconian, however authoritarian, however unjustifiable. It gives gross offence on this side of the House. I hope that we will not hear it again.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point about using that expression is that, as the noble Earl will know very well, some sanctions run for a defined period of time such as 13 or 26 weeks, and there is nothing the claimant can do about it. The point about saying, "All they have to do is to comply", is that at the moment, if after three efforts at contact they come through to the work-focused interview, the sanctions stop. That is the weight of it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister saying that if there is no compliance, the sanction never stops?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if there is no compliance, the sanction will continue. That is why we are trying to reach people through three efforts, including looking at good cause.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister has improved her case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it has been a very interesting short debate. I was very glad that the noble Baroness moved the amendment in the way she

685
did. The clause seeks to bring people who are partners of anyone on benefits into a work-focused interview. We have already explored some of the basic issues. I want to approach the matter from a slightly different angle, but first I shall address the particular questions which the noble Baroness asked of me.
First, what is a couple? As far as I am aware, the definition of a couple, whether married or unmarried—for example, a cohabiting couple—has not changed for over 50 years. In a similar discussion the other day the noble Earl, Lord Russell, helped me out in that regard. The basic tests are well known in relation to social security. There is a shared financial arrangement; there is presumed to be a shared sexual arrangement; they possibly have children; and the relationship has some degree of stability. Those are the usual tests that are applied to married or to unmarried couples. It is also a test in relation to people who are permanently separated.
Before as a Parliament we discuss and determine the possibility of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in law the term "couple" applies only to a heterosexual couple. Therefore, if two men or two women were living together in a sexual relationship, they would not be treated as a couple under social security law. That is the downside for them; on the other hand they would not gain advantages of inheritance rights, property and the like. Until, when or if the law changes that position, it applies only to cohabiting heterosexual couples.
I was pressed on the degree of coercion. It will be made perfectly clear that the interview will be exploratory, considering work and its options. The point is that there will be one work-focussed interview, six months after the benefit has started. At the moment there are no proposals for any subsequent or second interview and the benefits will continue to be paid. Therefore, it cannot be, as the noble Baroness pressed me, a coercive interview.
I want to return to the substantive point raised by the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right to say that largely this is a clause about women. Something like 79 per cent of the partners of those on JSA are women and of those on disability benefits, 84 per cent of the partners are women. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right to say that we are seeing profound changes. Why does it matter? The more I work in this field the more I am convinced that we need to address the issue of poverty through considering the position of second earners in the family. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Turner know as well as anyone that for a workless family the best way out of poverty is for someone to go into work.
Increasingly, it may be easier for the woman to find work than for the man. Roughly three-quarters of married women are in work. Over the past three years the number of jobs available to women has run at considerably higher figures than the jobs available to men. Increasingly, she is more likely to find work than
686
he is. One of my favourite small statistics is that there are more widows in work over the age of 50 than widowers, yet too often we persist in seeing her as a passive dependent on him.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right to say that that world view is changing and rightly so. For the sake of her family well-being, she, as much as he, needs to stay in touch with the labour market. That is why I am delighted that the new tax credits will be based on gross income and not on net income. That gives her much more of an incentive to go into the labour market without losing some of the tax credits.
That is not only for the benefit of the family—the two of them must make the decision—but it is for her own sake too. We know that 75 per cent of lone parents have come out of a couple relationship. We know that the poorest children in our society—they scar our society with their poverty—are children of lone parents who are not in work and not receiving maintenance. We know that if she was working while part of a couple, she is far more likely to continue to work as a lone parent, protecting herself and her children from long-term and persistent poverty. Anything that we can do to keep her as a married woman or a woman in a partnership in contact with the labour market so that she can make informed choices, not only helps to protect her family as a couple from poverty, but also helps to protect her and provides some future insurance should her relationship splinter so that she is on her own seeking to support her children.
Furthermore, if she is in work, she may well be able to build up pension rights, although given the complexity of the pension system, she may well need an informal and helpful, but positive, interview to explain how that may happen. If she is a carer, for example, she could receive access to a state second pension. A woman who was able to earn even a modest pension that is worth £25 a week or £100 a month for a couple who otherwise would be dependent on the state retirement pension with a pension credit, would now keep £60 of that. But I bet she does not know about that now; she cannot know; it is far too complicated given the technicalities of pension credits. A helpful, positive, unthreatening interview would give her that information. Her ability to work not only shelters the family from poverty while of working age and protects her from poverty should she become a lone parent, but it would also reduce the likelihood of carrying that poverty into old age.
Men are much more likely to have labour market contacts, a brother or a mate in work who can let them know when a job possibility is opening up. Women, especially if they have had children, may be many years away from having carried out waged work and they need far more help. They may need more confidence boosting, the offer of re-skilling, support through the early months and that is where personal advisers and work-focused interviews can take them through the territory. Virtually every lone parent whom I have met—I have met hundreds and hundreds—sing the

687
praises of their advisers based on work-focused interviews who have helped them to make informed choices.
We want all women as partners to have that opportunity and to have the right to make choices and work-focused interviews can do that. Some of the partners may have health problems; as my noble friend Lady Turner rightly said, others may have young children; others may have multiple caring responsibilities and the interviews may be able to help them with better support mechanisms. Equally, they may want to work and not yet know how to start. This clause is about empowering women as partners with much of the information that the husband takes for granted.
Do not take my word for it. There is the evidence of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which held a joint inquiry into the ONE service and stated:
"ONE interviews offer positive advantages to all those claiming benefits. We take the view that the requirement to attend an interview is not onerous in itself; but the element of compulsion may well be necessary to bring along those people who are demoralised, isolated, or lacking in confidence, in order to connect them to the help and encouragement which is available".
The research that I have mentioned, of which I have seen the early findings and which will be published in July, confirms exactly that.
I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that I have tried to answer her specific points about partners and the like. If we are to help women to keep their families out of poverty, if we are to protect them should they become lone parents and if we are not to push poverty into old age, the most helpful way will be to bring them into work-based interviews where all those matters and ways forward that suit them can be discussed and explored. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, having given the Minister the opportunity to make that clear explanation I thank her for it. If anyone else stood at the Dispatch Box and made some of the points that she has made I would be tempted to say, "That is all apple pie" and so on. However. I believe that the reputation of the noble Baroness is such that when she says that she has seen the evidence, which will be published in July, I believe that she has seen it and that it is good. She also mentioned what the Select Committee said. Despite the fact that I had doubts, and in view of the way that the noble Baroness has put the matter, I can see the argument. I believe that the House will want to see the evidence. I am happy to take the word of the noble Baroness so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
"UNFAIR DISMISSAL: PARTICIPATION IN INDUSTRIAL ACTION
(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 521 is amended as follows.
688
(2) In section 238A (participation in official industrial action)—

(a) in subsection (2) the word "(a)" and the words ". and (b) subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies to the dismissal'. are omitted; and

(b) subsections (3) to (7) are omitted."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill we have set out at length the reasons for abolishing the eight-week rule. Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 view the matter in complementary ways. Later this summer there will be a major review of a number of aspects of the Employment Act 1999 which in many other ways has bedded down well. The Central Arbitration Committee, for example, has looked at trade union recognition. Everyone agrees that one aspect of the 1999 Act, which in this amendment is amended technically as a schedule of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, 'was never satisfactory. It means that in a difficult dispute, such as the current case at Friction Dynamics in Caernarvon, at the end of eight weeks the 87 workers who had taken lawful industrial action were dismissed.
I shall restate the question we have always posed: since when did a fundamental human right have a shelf life of only two months? We must address the problem. No doubt we shall not solve it tonight, but it is important that we start to feed some credible thinking into the review. The eight-week rule has to go. One of the perverse consequences of the current system is that the employer has no incentive to make a reasonable offer. After eight weeks he can simply get rid of the workers. That is one of the rights and wrongs of the matter, but surely it is not a position we can live with. It is a difficult problem to solve.
One way to make progress is to consider why, after eight weeks, workers typically do not want to go to arbitration or be forced into a less than satisfactory agreement and to return on the basis that it will save them money in the long run. That is to do with the emotiveness of many disputes, but surely it is not a process that we are looking for in the modern world. It is a question of public policy. We want to look at why satisfactory arbitration or mediation schemes do not come into effect within the present ACAS arrangements as much as they should. That would have to be side by side with the abolition of the eight-week rule because then we would have to deal with the canard that people could be on strike forever. Of course, that is a ridiculous way of looking at the issue, but it has been posed in that crude way.
In a civilised society we need not only to abolish the eight-week rule but also to consider in the review changes in public policy so that workers' right unilaterally to go to arbitration are built into public policy at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 122, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 121 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall. Both amendments concern the dismissal of those who take part in lawful strike action.

689
English law unhappily is still in the age of the dinosaurs when most other modern systems, especially European systems, have moved on to a different evolutionary stage. As has been said, since the problem will be addressed in the Government's long promised review into collective labour law issues, it is right to make a preliminary statement at this stage in the hope that we can be assured the Government will look at the problem in the round. It must be placed on the agenda.
We were confirmed in that belief by the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer in Grand Committee:
"We will begin the review in May or June this year"—
it is now quite late in June—
"The Government will include within the review an examination of the Act's provisions on the dismissal of strikers".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; cols. CWH 291–292.]
Our amendment speaks of a stoppage of work, which is protected within Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as not constituting a breach of the contract of employment. It states that further provision would have to be made in our law that such lawful industrial action would have the effect of suspending the contract of employment and then exceptions would have to be made in regard to obligations arising under it. In the last respect, I refer to a suspension of the employer's obligation to pay wages, no doubt taking account of the continuance of certain obligations such as the obligation to preserve confidential information. That is a common part of systems that understand that lawful industrial action suspends the contract of employment.
The question of whether it is right that workers should be lawfully dismissed from their jobs by reason of taking part in industrial action even when that action is protected on the part of their trade union after a proper ballot, notice and all the other required procedures in the 1992 Act, must be looked at.
I must speak carefully to the amendment since its object is to put the issue on the agenda in a preliminary way. The case that I am arguing, which is that one needs to go a little further than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lea, is often met with misunderstanding, and sometimes misrepresentation. The matter would not raise an eyebrow in most jurisdictions, particularly in western Europe. It has been accepted in the 20th century by employers in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and elsewhere, but it has not really been confronted by employers in Britain.
When a worker takes part in collective industrial action, in the eye of a large number of international standards and in jurisdictions throughout the world that person does not by those standards break the contract of employment. The reason is that the right to take part in collective industrial action is regarded internationally and in those systems as a basic human right. Jurisprudentially it is difficult to see why the exercise of a basic right can be made into wrongdoing, especially by contractual obligation. The human right
690
to take action to stop work collectively is to be regarded as something that inheres in the worker as well as the organisation.
The reason it is not recognised in the United Kingdom is that since 1906 our law has concentrated on the basis that it is adequate to promote the protection of those who organise and induce industrial strike action, leaving aside the individual and in effect not changing the old master and servant principle that industrial action is a breach of an obligation owed contractually by the worker; that the servant who goes on strike is guilty of a breach of contract and has no other rights. The individual worker is still essentially governed by the same principles as those springing from the Statute of Labourers 1351.
The difference between protecting the inducement or organisation of industrial action and protecting the action of individual workers remains fundamental in our law when it does not reign throughout most jurisdictions elsewhere. The definition of what constitutes industrial action or a strike varies in individual jurisdictions, but modern systems suspend the contract of employment in relation to normal, lawful strike action. The French principle in the Code du Travail and in the constitution since 1946 is that,
"a strike does not break the contract of employment unless the employee is guilty of serious (other) misconduct".
That means misconduct apart from exercising the right to stop work. Similar legal consequences flow from the Italian, Spanish and German constitutions, and from elsewhere. In each system appropriate exceptions are made to the basic concept of suspension, as I mentioned earlier.
As our law stands, the breach of the contract of employment in Britain, as the Donovan report set out as long ago as 1968, will normally result from virtually all industrial action. It is time that Parliament debated the matter, and that the Government reviewed the issue in the round—in particular because the principle that a right to strike is a right and should not amount to a breach of the individual's contract of employment falls under many international standards by which we are bound. One needs only to mention the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Council of Europe's Social Charter, and especially the International Labour Organisation's Convention on Freedom of Association (Convention No. 87/1947, as supplemented by the convention of 1948).
The bodies in the ILO—the International Labour Organisation—such as the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts—have held for decades that the right to strike is,
"one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests as guaranteed by the Convention".
In their reports, the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association and Committee of Experts have frequently shown that United Kingdom law does not accord with that standard. The governing body has accepted those reports. As government Ministers constantly point out, it is true that the governing body

691
has not in fact adopted a specific paragraph on the United Kingdom. But it is impossible to read the ILO records without knowing that the governing body has accepted those reports from the committee and from the experts as meaning that UK law does not accord with that basic principle of a right, as opposed to a liberty, for trade unions to take industrial action.
The European Social Charter of 1989 affirmed:
"The right to resort to collective action in the event of a conflict of interest shall include the right to strike".
In Article 28, the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 affirmed:
"Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action".
In that formulation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to which we subscribe, it is true that the phrase,
"in accordance with national laws and practices",
is included. But it is impossible to believe that that intends to abolish the basic right to take,
"collective action to defend their interests, including strike action".
The Council of Europe's Social Charter has been interpreted as not including certain limited types of industrial action. It means a complete cessation of work. We have, therefore, included the words "stoppage of work" in our amendment to take account of that. But under the conventions of the ILO and the European charters of various kinds, the UK has also been much criticized—and this must be borne in mind in the review—in making illegal all forms of what are now called "secondary" and "sympathetic" industrial action. That principle does not accord with international standards, especially those of the ILO.
It is also true to say—this is a very serious issue for the Government—that the matter has been considered many times by the Council of Europe's experts and governing authorities, as well as by the bodies of the International Labour Organisation. The United Kingdom has been condemned in both bodies in respect of its failure to observe the fundamental principle of a right for workers to take strike action.
There is voluminous literature on the matter. But in a recent article in the spring edition of the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations for 2002, one of the many journals in which the scholarly literature has again and again brought this matter to light, Professor Tonia Novitz and Dr Paul Gennanotta write:
"UK defiance in the face of international criticism would seem to flow from two complementary and inter-related factors. The first is the limited status of international conventions under UK law: there are no means by which to seek the enforcement of ILO Conventions and the European Social Charter in the national courts. The second is the perception that economic dictates must take precedence over international obligations. This can be attributed to the pressures that UK governments have felt to attract and maintain international investment".
692
They also refer to some of the excuses given for that failure. British Ministers have frequently defended our failure to institute a right to strike in the same manner as the other systems to which I referred.
In putting this on the agenda, one must face the fact, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said when replying to a similar case made in Grand Committee, that:
"This is a very radical step. It would in principle overt urn long established law on the effect of industrial action on contracts of employment that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn set out in full for us. It would make it considerably more difficult for employers to protect what they would regard as their legitimate business interests during prolonged periods of industrial action. It is therefore not an approach that readily commends itself to the Government, but again I refer to the review".—[Official Report, 21/3/02; col. CWH 292.]
I very much hope that the Government will not approach the problem that Amendment No. 122 puts to them on that rather pre—judged basis. It would change a rule—an ancient master-and-servant rule— very fundamentally. Indeed, it would go beyond the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall; but, with great respect to him, I believe that it is a logical consequence of his correct argument that, at present, we have an arbitrary eight-week rule that limits what is a human right. An eight-week limitation on a human right is very odd. It is also very odd to say that individual strikers are in breach of their contract of employment but that for eight weeks the employer can do nothing about it. It would be much more sensible to face up to the core issue of the problem.
The Government cannot solve the problem tonight. but I very much hope that we shall receive an assurance that this logical consequence will be on the agenda for discussion in the review; that it will be fully argued: that the literature on the subject will be properly addressed—something that no British government have ever yet done; and that the arguments in respect of the international standards to which we do not conform at present will be looked out sensibly and without prejudgment by the Government. I know that this asks a lot of them, because it will not be a popular discussion among employers and their organisations. Indeed, the CBI, the Engineering Employers' Federation, and the Chambers of Commerce have already expressed alarm at the very fact that there will be a review. It is time for the United Kingdom to look at its law in a manner that takes regard of international standards, which other systems have not found it impossible to accommodate. I support my noble friend's amendment, but hope that the review to which he referred will take account of our Amendment No. 122.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, naturally I want: to support Amendment No. 122, but it is important to begin by looking at what it actually says. It is an attempt to direct attention to what we believe to be the long-term solution, but it is also, in a sense, an attempt to specify how constructive the solution is. I draw noble Lords' attention to subsection (2) in particular, which reads:

693
"The Secretary of State shall make regulations by order to provide for such industrial action having the effect of suspending the contract of employment—
that is, the basic solution—
"and, subject to such exceptions as are specified—
so we are saying that there can be exceptions, if they are agreed—
"the obligations arising under it".
I should like to return to a comment made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer in Grand Committee. We put down an amendment designed to do something about the eight-week rule and he said at col. CWH 292 that we were seeking to disturb a "carefully constructed compromise". I do not believe that the eight-week agreement, or concession, or movement, was a "carefully constructed compromise". It was the best that the trade unions could get at the time. It was not that they liked it; it was all that they could get from an incoming Labour government. It was not a "carefully constructed compromise" which he suggested needed time to bed down. If the Government are saying that we have largely solved the problem by a "carefully constructed compromise" which must have time to bed down, then what chance is there that we are going to get any significant change in the promised review which is about to begin?
I believe that the Government must accept that it was the best that could be obtained at the time. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, the whole issue goes back a very long way to 1351. I would rather that we go back at least as far as the struggle in the 19th century for the trade union movement to rid itself of the effects of common law liability. That struggle went on. Several times the trade union movement thought that it had achieved what it wanted to achieve by various statutes. Common law liability developed new forms of liability. That was a very long political struggle that has influenced our attitude to the whole question under review. It went on until the 1906 Trade Disputes Act which was a political struggle and a political victory.
In 1906 the trade union movement thought that it had established what it required—immunities for unions which lasted a long time—and that that would deal with the issue. At that time, if someone had asked about the workers who might be dismissed during the course of a strike, I believe there would have been several answers. One answer would have been that in collective bargaining—and this is an issue which arises in collective bargaining—one of our objectives at the end of a strike is to negotiate a no-victimisation understanding or agreement.
As the unions saw it in 1906, the solution to the problem was that if the union funds were beyond the reach of common law and if union action was covered by effective immunities, if there were problems—for example, if there were employers who were looking for victimisation of workers on strike—that could be settled as an issue at the end of the strike. No-victimisation was an important concern in industrial
694
disputes. If one looks at the history of the 1920s, 1930s and beyond, many strikes and major disputes in this country dragged on longer than needed because the unions were refusing to return to work unless they could obtain some protection for their members.
If one had asked why there was not some form of suspension of the contract, the fact is that in that period there were no frameworks of individual rights at work of the kind we have today. Now we can look at the situation and say that if we have protection for discrimination, if we have protection for unfair dismissal, if we have a whole range of directives coming from Europe, then why do we not have individual protection for the individual worker in a strike situation? We have a different situation from that which faced the trade union movement, employers and the government in the years before the growth of individual rights.
In addition, the immunities no longer exist in the way that occurred after the 1906 Trade Disputes Act. Now the Government have accepted that and, in effect, the trade union movement, broadly speaking, has accepted that part of the Thatcher legacy. We must have balance before we have strikes. We now even have to tell the workers that they are breaking their contract, or that they may be breaking their contract, and they may be dismissed when they go on strike. They did not happen in 1906. We now have to give proper notice and, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, in effect the protection which the trade union movement has is limited to primary action. There is no protection in secondary action.
Therefore, immunities provisions are considerably more narrow and more specified by law, and the whole of the worker's individual rights at work have been widened. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, the world of individual rights is now an international world. It is the international norm that that situation should exist. Therefore, in effect, it is known everywhere that they exist except in America and this country.
That is why we asked for the review to consider the option of suspension. We have to ask ourselves why there is so much resistance among British employers. I do not want to set this aside as though it did not exist. I believe the answer is that many British employers have an exaggerated view of what suspension could mean. When one discusses it with some well informed people, they believe that it results in workers not only not being sacked but actually being paid during the period of strike.
First, nobody is suggesting that we have the doctrine of suspension; that people are going to be paid for sitting idle while the strike goes on. It is the absence of pay—the fact that the worker has no resources during the strike— which is the killer factor on the worker's side. Similarly, on the employer's side the killer factor is that he is denied supply. It is the interaction between the sanctions of supply denial on the employer's side and pay denial on the worker's side which brings most strikes to an end—not the question as to whether or not people have or have not got suspension.

695
Secondly, l do not believe that most people who oppose this in the way that many employers oppose it actually realise that we can have restrictions in the labour force; that the employer would possibly be free to replace the workers on strike. We are not suggesting that there should be a suspension policy; that the employer cannot seek to replace the worker, or transfer the work outside the area of the worker. We are not saying that we would guarantee that nobody would be declared redundant after the strike. We are saying that the worker cannot be dismissed because he has broken his contract. However, if the strike lasts a long time then the worker may find that the job has disappeared. As specified in our amendment, we are also saying that we can consider the issue of exceptions.
Finally, there is no sign that where that right exists, where it is the case that the doctrine of suspension applies, that this transfers the power from the employer to the workers. It is merely a factor in the general mix; it is merely a civilised way of conducting industrial relations; it is a civilised way of dealing with the question of the status of the worker during the period of the strike.
However, one might ask, "Why make so much of it? It does not fundamentally affect the power balance. If it could be introduced with the use of exceptions; if it does not mean that the workers are sitting there being paid, why make so much of it? Why demand it? Why is it preferable to a change in the period of protection or any kind of idea that might be put forward?".
I believe that certain points can be made. Nowadays, loss of a job—especially loss of a good job, and especially loss of a good job where a worker has been employed for some period of time and hopes for further progression—is a much more serious matter than it used to be. We are trying to advance high wages and commitment to the organisation. That is dependent on continuity of a contractual relationship. That is why we want to protect it in a period of dispute.
Secondly, one has to prevent the unjustified assumption that people have been dismissed for misconduct. If we break our contract of employment, most people think we have done something reprehensible which strikes at the root of the contract. If someone loses their job in a strike, it is assumed it is because of some industrial misconduct. But a strike is not industrial misconduct. It is wrong to think of it as such. It is a perfectly lawful action. It should not be associated with the notion of breach of contract.
So there are many reasons why it is a positive action to change the Bill as proposed. It is the gateway to civilised industrial relations. And if we do not take this action, we are bound to get employers like Friction Dynamics who will exploit a situation. They will deliberately drag out the period of negotiations until they get into a strike situation. They will not advance any settlement. They will sit and wait for the eight weeks to run out and then dismiss the labour force. That is not a civilised way of resolving problems in industrial relations.
696
We ask the Government. in their review, to look at this option very carefully. I have thought for a long time about the matter. I cannot see any long-term solution to the problem other than something based upon the notion of suspension. I support the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these three amendments draw us into a debate about the effectiveness of the protections against dismissal for taking certain types of industrial action. These protections were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. We debated the same or similar amendments in Grand Committee and I shall therefore repeat the arguments my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer used then in resisting the amendments.
I begin with Amendments Nos. 121 and 145. These seek to re-write substantially the changes introduced by the Employment Relations Act 1999. They seek to make it unfair in all cases for the employer to sack those taking protected industrial action. That is achieved by removing various parts of Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which currently qualify the protection against dismissal in these circumstances.
As my noble friend Lord Lea reminded us, the Government are about to undertake a major review of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The comments of my noble friend setting out some of the arguments are a valuable input to that review. Although the review's terms of reference have not been published, we have made it known that the Act's provisions on the dismissal of strikers will be included within it.
The review gives us an opportunity to examine how the new law has operated in practice. It is certain that the experiences at Friction Dynamics will feature prominently. However, it is worth remembering that Friction Dynamics is but one example where strikers have been dismissed. There are very few others. Also, the Friction Dynamics case is as yet unresolved. Various complaints to tribunals have been made but those will not he heard until the autumn. It is difficult to judge how the new protections have worked until the complaints are heard.
We shall consult in detail during the review. This will allow all sides to express their opinion and feed in their evidence. Only then will the Government decide whether the law in this or other areas of the 1999 Act needs to be changed. However, if we conclude that legislative changes are required, we have promised to introduce the necessary legislation in the life of this Parliament.
I therefore ask my noble friends not to press their amendments. I am sure that they will have many opportunities to put across their views to the Government on this issue in the course of the forthcoming review.
Amendment No. 122 would in effect make it unfair to dismiss any person taking protected industrial action because it would remove the main grounds for

697
dismissal; namely, that the striker had broken his contract of employment. As I said in Grand Committee, my noble friend is proposing a very radical step. I am sure he accepts that. In principle it would overturn long established law on the effect of industrial action on contracts of employment. It is therefore not an approach which readily commends itself to the Government.
In the light of my remarks, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lea will understand that the Government cannot support the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, so many points have been made on the two major amendments that all we can say at this stage is that, as the Minister said, the review is intended to be wide-ranging and nothing will be excluded from it. To that extent the review must go into the fundamentals of the main thrust of the two main amendments. Some of the more radical suggestions put forward may not prove to be practicable when looked at in depth. But the review is a good opportunity to examine them.
My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy have gone deeply into the principles of the nature of the contract of employment. Suffice to say the Minister indicated that the review will take on board the wide range of suggestions made. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 123:
Page 76, line 31, at end insert—
"() In section 5 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), in subsection (5) (application to statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay) for "and statutory maternity pay" there is substituted ", statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 to 131. These technical amendments to Schedule 7 simply ensure that the appropriate minor and consequential amendments concerning statutory paternity and adoption pay are made to the Social Security Administration Act and the Employment Rights Act.
Amendment No. 123 rectifies an oversight by inserting reference to statutory paternity and adoption pay into the part of the Social Security Administration Act that deals with some of the finer administrative details. This amendment will enable us to make clear in regulations some of the minutiae of how claims and payments are administered, as existing references in the Act already enable us to do for statutory maternity pay. For example, it will enable us to specify in regulations that payment calculations involving fractional amounts are rounded to the next whole pence.
698
The remaining amendments in the group put right inaccuracies that have crept into a few of the paragraphs that amend the Employment Rights Act. I ask noble Lords to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 77, line 33, at end insert—
"In section 212A(1) (claims and proceedings to which ACAS arbitration scheme applies)—

(a) after "tribunal" insert "under, or", and

(b) after "contravention of" insert—

"(za) section 80G(1) or 80H(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (flexible working),", and

(c) in paragraph (a), for "the Employment Rights Act 1996" substitute "that Act"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 124, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126 and 132 to 134.
I advised the Grand Committee that the Government would be making changes in connection with Clause 47 of the Bill concerning flexible working. These amendments by the Government concern those changes, comprising an exemption regarding the Armed Forces and provision for the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Services (ACAS) to provide binding arbitration in cases where the employer and employee are unable to agree. It is therefore appropriate that they are grouped together and I shall speak to all five as one.
Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 relate to the proposed exemption of the Armed Forces from the flexible working provisions. As was explained in Grand Committee, the Bill as currently drafted applies those provisions to the Armed Forces. However, all members of the Armed Forces are in a unique position of being liable to be deployed operationally at little or no notice if national interests require it. Those unique working conditions make it impractical to apply longterm flexible working arrangements to service personnel as envisaged in this new right to apply for flexible working. Accordingly, we concluded that the new provisions should not apply to them.
It is worth noting that the Armed Forces will continue to seek to comply with the spirit of the legislation, subject always to overriding operational requirements. They fully recognise the benefits of flexible working to individuals and their organisations.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 126 provide for ACAS conciliation and an ACAS binding arbitration scheme for disputes concerning flexible working. The main priority of the flexible working provisions is to foster dialogue between parents and employers in order to find a flexible working pattern to suit them both. As part of this commitment, we always intended that there should be a binding arbitration scheme prepared by ACAS to deal with disputes regarding requests for

699
flexible working which cannot be resolved in the workplace. These minor and technical amendments will allow us to do that.
The provision for a scheme relating to flexible working will also help to ensure that as few cases as possible end up at an employment tribunal. Because the arbitration is binding, those who opt to use the scheme also waive their right to have their case heard at tribunal.
I am aware that concerns were raised during Grand Committee as to the low take-up of the current ACAS scheme. As I explained then, it is too early to assess the success or otherwise of the scheme.
That said, I believe that the flexible working provisions lend themselves very well to an ACAS scheme. Disputes arising under those provisions will be relatively straightforward, concerning whether procedures have been contravened or if a decision by an employer to reject an application has been made on the basis of incorrect facts. These are essentially factual rather than legal issues.
Amendment No. 126 has the additional effect of ensuring that conciliation is also an option in the resolution of any disputes arising out of the flexible working provisions. Again, that is entirely consistent with the Bill's key approach of ensuring that alternative avenues of dispute resolution are available and contributing towards keeping employment tribunals to a minimum. I therefore beg to move this sensible and necessary amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 125 to 134:
Page 77, line 34, at end insert—
"The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is amended as follows."
Page 77, line 35, leave out paragraph 21 and insert—
"In section 18(1) (claims and proceedings to which provisions as to conciliation apply)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after "168," there is inserted "168A,",

(b) in paragraph (d)—

(i) at the beginning there is inserted "under or", and

(ii) after "28," there is inserted "80G(1), 80H(1)(b),", and

(c) in paragraph (1), at the beginning there is inserted "under or".

Page 77, line 37, at end insert—
"In section 19 (conciliation procedure), at the end of paragraph (a) there is inserted "and"."
Page 78, line 1, leave out "12A" and insert "12ZA"
Page 78, line 2, leave out "12B" and insert "12ZB"
Page 78, line 9, after "tribunal)," insert "in subsection (1),"
Page 79, line 7, leave out "substituted" and insert "inserted"
Page 79. line 28, after "192(2)" insert "(e)"
Page 79, line 28, after "of' insert "Part 10 of"
Page 79. leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert ", after "103" there is inserted ",104C"."
700
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 81, line 15, at end insert—
"In section 23(5), omit the words "or otherwise""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in his response to the same amendment in Grand Committee, which was the last one to be called, the Minister began by saying that the debate on the Bill was,
"liable to end with a whimper, rather than a bang".—[Official Report, 22/4/02; col. CWH 549]
I inform the Minister that I do not introduce amendments for fun as jokes, to waste time, or for anything other than proper and serious purposes. This one has such a purpose. If the Minister had treated our previous discussions and our subsequent correspondence with proper seriousness, instead of as a joke, perhaps he would not have been so dismissive of what is a perfectly proper amendment, to which it is clear that he has no answer.
For the benefit of those of your Lordships who have been following this matter with less than bated breath, or have not been following it at all, perhaps I can explain this very simple issue. Schedule 7 to the Bill deals with minor amendments to other Acts. Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 is described in its marginal notes as:
"Power to confer rights on individuals".
Subsection (5) states:
"An order made under this section may make provision in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, whether by amending Acts or instruments or otherwise".
Your Lordships will note the words "or otherwise" which the amendment seeks to omit.
On 4th December 2001, at Question Time, I asked the Minister:
"Can the Minister tell the House what the word 'otherwise' means in this context? Does it mean that the Secretary of State would be able to bypass Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments?".—[Official Report, 4/12/01; col. 702.]
The Minister frankly admitted that he could not explain what the words "or otherwise" meant, and offered to write to me, which in due course he did.
In the words of the old song:
"He sent me round a note, and here is what he wrote".
I shall quote it verbatim, because I want your Lordships to get the same full flavour of it as I offered the Grand Committee. He said:
"The use of 'or otherwise' were intended to ensure that an order made under Section 23 could also apply to rights to individuals by means of a free-standing provision rather than by an amendment".
He continued:
"This was simply to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to extend rights in the way that seemed best from the drafting point of view. The words do not extend her powers in any way".
There are only two ways to amend an Act of Parliament—either by another Act of Parliament or by a statutory instrument. There is absolutely no such thing as a "free-standing provision".

701
I asked the Minister in Grand Committee what this new constitutional device was, but of course he could not tell me. The only interpretation of "free-standing provision" has to be that the Secretary of State wants power to amend legislation by whatever means suit her, and by bypassing Parliament.
I invited the Minister to say whether putting announcements in the London Gazette or some obscure local paper would suffice. I suggested that perhaps a "free-standing provision" could be the amending of legislation by distributing leaflets via sandwich-men parading up and down Whitehall with their boards. Never mind posting an announcement on the Secretary of State's generally unread website, maybe she would simply open her office window and shout out the news.
This is a perfectly serious point. The Secretary of State is seeking power to amend legislation without—and I believe that it is without—parliamentary sanction. I know the Government keep on about this free-standing thing, but it is not appropriate. It is a dangerous precedent which should be decisively stamped on. In fact, I believe that this peculiar phrase had its origin when the draftsman became, in the words of William Gladstone,
"inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity".
He just stuck on the extra two words for no reason except mere prolixity. Any government, except perhaps this one, would say that this was a drafting error and would not try to attempt to justify it with meaningless gobbledegook about free-standing provisions. The Minister told the Grand Committee that. He said:
"The noble Baroness's amendment would simply take away the current flexibility for the Secretary of State to extend rights in a way that is best from a drafting point of view".—[Official Report, 22/4/02; col. CWH 550.]
He has certainly got that right. I want to take away the flexibility of the Secretary of State to amend legislation in a novel and previously unheard of way that the Minister did not—and, I suspect, cannot—explain. I do not believe that we have yet reached the state in this country where we can be governed by mere ministerial decree, which in fact is what "or otherwise" allows. The more the Minister continues to try to defend the indefensible and is unable to explain what is clearly the inexplicable, the greater the suspicion that the Government now wish to seize on a slip of the draftsman's pen and to create what I have just described as a dangerous precedent.
I should like to think that, just for once, this arrogant government will admit that they made a minor mistake, and not try to bluster it away. I know that the noble Lord will say to me, because he always does, that there is some reason. But, on the number of occasions that I have spoken to or written to the noble Lord he has been unable to give me any answer at all, until all of a sudden, up came this free-standing thing, which is unheard of anywhere. None of my parliamentary colleagues has ever heard of it. So I say to the noble Lord, more in hope than expectation, I beg to move.
7.45
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 empowers the Secretary of State to extend the coverage of statutory employment protection rights by order to individuals not currently covered by them. Subsection (1) lists the legislation containing the rights in relation to which the power can be exercised. Subsection (5) permits the Secretary of State to make the extension to the legislation listed under subsection (1) in such a way as she thinks fit, whether by amending Acts, instruments or otherwise.
I shall now make a final attempt to explain the point to the noble Baroness. It is quite simple and really quite boring. I shall try to explain it again, but on condition that she removes the amendment and permanently withdraws it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I say to the Minister, "No, if you do not manage to convince me, I shall not withdraw the amendment; I shall divide the House".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in spite of that I shall try to explain the matter again.
The words "or otherwise" do not give the Secretary of State the power to extend any extra employment rights to any category of individuals; nor do they mean that the Secretary of State can make an order using a different process or extend rights without making an order at all. It is merely a question of how an order under Section 23 is drafted to apply employment rights to particular categories of individuals. As I explained to the noble Baroness in Grand Committee, the present wording of Section 23(5) enables an order made under Section 23 to extend rights to individuals by means of a "free-standing" provision in an instrument, if that appears preferable, rather than by an amendment to existing primary or secondary legislation.
The advantage of this approach might be that the order extending the rights would be easier for business to understand, because it would say what rights the individuals now have, rather than listing a series of Acts and orders that have been amended. It would also allow the Secretary of State to confer rights on particular groups in the most appropriate manner. That does not mean that we can put a notice in the press stating that employment rights are to be extended, and it is certainly not a device that would allow the Secretary of State to circumvent Parliament.
All of that is rather technical, so let me give your Lordships an example of how that will work in practice. If we were to extend certain rights to everyone called Doreen, "or otherwise" means that we could draw up a list listing the rights—that is, rights already established in law—and say that they applied to people called Doreen. Or we could draw up an order individually amending each piece of legislation conferring one of the rights so that those pieces of legislation said that the rights applied to people called Doreen. Both methods of drafting achieve the same

703
result, but one may be better than the other. Of course, both methods require affirmative law. So it is a small technical point that is understood well by the lawyers; it simply concerns which way round we put it. It has no constitutional significance; it gives the Secretary of State no greater rights; it is simply a question of which way draft the legislation. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness and that, despite her fighting comments, she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Section 23 is entitled:
"Power to confer rights on individuals".
Subsection (5) states:
"An order made under this section may make provision in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, whether by amending Acts or instruments or otherwise".
The Minister came up with his explanation about all the different ways that the provision could apply to Doreen—I do not know whether that was meant to placate me and make me feel more kindly towards the Minister, although I always do think kindly towards him, even when I think that he is wrong.
I return to the point about "or otherwise". The Minister said that he has explained that to me several times. In fact, he has not, because the first time that I asked the question across the Dispatch Box, he did not know the answer. When I wrote a letter and spoke to him about it afterwards, he said that he did not see what the problem was—in other words, he still did not know, The first time that he came up with the "freestanding" explanation was in Committee. A few moments ago, I think that he said that in any case, an affirmative order would be laid. Did I hear him correctly?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the power to confer these rights exist in the basic legislation. The "or otherwise" is simply a question of which way it is phrased. If the noble Baroness is objecting to the power to extend those rights, that is in the basic legislation. As I explained, "or otherwise" simply means that it can be done in two ways: by amending each piece of legislation or by having a piece of legislation that states that the powers in those Bills apply to a group of individuals. It is as simple as that. In either case, an affirmative order is required, as is stated in the legislation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord said that lawyers would understand the provision. I have had two lawyers examine it and neither of them understood it. Neither did they understand it to mean what the Minister has just described. So I obviously cannot really accept what he is saying. But rather than divide the House at this stage, I shall read carefully the explanations that he has given and take them to the lawyers again. I have also spoken to people in the Library, who say that they cannot find any evidence of any such provision in any other Act.
704
Perhaps the Minister will talk to his officials and tell me where else we may find such a thing if there is one. This is a serious matter. If my interpretation is correct and the Minister's is incorrect, the provision would be inappropriate for any Bill. Apparently, it is not contained in any other Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been in the 1999 Act for three years.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Indeed, my Lords, and, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that was not mentioned, noticed or spoken to when the Bill passed through the other place. Neither did I spot it at first, but the minute that I did, I drew it to the Minister's attention and this is the first time—other than in Committee—that it has come up. The fact that a tiny little bit has been stuck there unseen has nothing to do with it. It has not been copied anywhere else. It has not been used anywhere else and I find it extraordinary. However, as I said, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and I shall most definitely take advice on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 136 to 143:
Page 81, leave out lines 24 to 26.
Page 81, leave out lines 36 to 38.
Page 82, leave out lines 2 and 3.
Page 82, line 4, column 2, leave out "Section 19(c)." and insert—
"In section 19, paragraph (c) and the word "and" immediately before it."
Page 82, leave out line 10.
Page 82, leave out lines 17 and 18.
Page 82, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Page 82, leave out lines 38 to 41.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 55 [Short title etc.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 60, line 12, after "sections" insert "45, 46,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clauses 45 and 46 will enable regulations on fixed-term work to be made that will transpose the EC Fixed Term Work Directive and prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees. The amendment provides that those clauses will come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, thus allowing the fixed-term regulations to be laid immediately. That time-saving measure means that the Secretary of State will not have to make a commencement order for the fixed-term regulations, as would otherwise be the case.
The Fixed Term Work Directive needs to be transposed soon in order to meet EC obligations. If we can lay regulations immediately on Royal Assent. employers and employees will have more time to prepare for their coming into force. That should ensure compliance with the regulations. We shall, of course, be producing guidance on the new legislation.

705
Most respondents to the recent consultation on the draft fixed-term regulations said that they would benefit from more time to prepare for the regulations. I hope that your Lordships appreciate the benefits of the amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]

Refugees
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing time for this debate and I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
This short debate, which falls in refugee week, is not intended to be a rehearsal for Monday's Second Reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I shall address only one aspect of that Bill: the intended overseas gateway for genuine refugees. The prospects for the genuine refugee have become progressively worse than they were seven years ago—before the previous two asylum Acts. That is both despite and because of improvements that make us now one of the fairest asylum regimes in the world.
The genuine refugee—in case anyone has lost sight of that unfortunate person—is someone who has suffered persecution under the terms of the 1951 convention and is therefore entitled to claim asylum in the countries that are signatories. We know that the number of asylum seekers has increased drastically since then, mainly because of conflict, globalisation and trafficking. That has meant more congestion in the courts, more competition at the port of entry—Sangatte being the latest nightmare for all concerned—and, worst of all, a more hostile environment for refugees. In the words of writer Jeremy Harding:
"Refugees have begun to look like beggars at the gate, or even thieves".
That is a terrible indictment. In the media and on the street, genuine refugees are now accused of all sorts of crimes that they have not committed. Cases of assault, theft, fraud and violence committed in our cities are being laid at the door of refugees. I know personally of a case in which a criminal gang from Europe routinely comes over to break into cashpoints.
So the old question remains: how can we distinguish the genuine refugees from the bogus one, and especially from young migrants—known to be mainly in their 20s and 30s—who are genuinely seeking a new life but see a new opportunity as asylum seekers which both this Government and the previous one have provided.
There are many grey areas. There are asylum seekers with genuine claims entering illegally via Sangatte, often because they are in the hands of agents or they have succumbed to trafficking. We can all understand the motivation of migrants who claim asylum. Anyone
706
in Zimbabwe without a UK passport, for instance, who has no direct evidence of persecution is in precisely that situation. But we cannot support that under asylum legislation.
This is not a contentious subject. All of us would like to find ways of distinguishing refugees from illegal immigrants right at the outset of their journey. Indeed, the Government have recognised this in the new Bill. During the Standing Committee, Mrs Angela Eagle expressed a general concern that at the moment people cannot enter the country legally to claim asylum.
Accordingly, the Bill is making a modest start by means of the new Clause 47, which is the proposal for a resettlement programme. While I welcome this, it is still far too modest a scheme and looks suspiciously like window dressing. This is why we must scrutinise what the Government are doing. Instead, we need a more vigorous approach which demonstrates the Government's determination to identify the genuine refugee. At present, Ministers are pointing at the "gateway" rather like the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need this approach urgently, and we need it now.
The gateway schemes are usually linked with Jack Straw's speech as Home Secretary during the Lisbon conference of 16th June 2000, when he said:
"It is unacceptable for genuine refugees to have to wait years for a decision. And it is unacceptable for taxpayers to have to bear for a prolonged period the cost of supporting asylum applicants who do not qualify for refugee status".
He then went on to stress the need to move towards the common system agreed in Tampere. He listed the shortcomings of the 1951 convention, arguing that any EU harmonisation is bound to lead to a new interpretation of the convention, although he said that this must be done without jeopardising its core principles. We would all support that.
Other noble Lords may wish to take up the European question during Second Reading. In the past two years there has been little progress and many are becoming exasperated and calling for a bilateral agreement with France. I cannot see how this week's meeting in Seville will achieve very much more, but I hope that I am wrong and that the Minister will put me right.
I am concerned now, however, with the last part of Jack Straw's speech, when it came to his world view of migration—a view which is hardly ever heard from a Home Secretary in a national or even a European context. This is why I am recalling it today. He acknowledged that the "burden" of asylum—which is a contentious phrase—falls more heavily on developing countries. He went on to say:
"We should therefore approach the issue from a world, and not an exclusively northern hemisphere perspective. We need to do all that we can, through the United Nations and more directly, to bolster and support states around the world who receive these major influxes—dealing with them, whenever possible, primarily as regional problems … And we need to look more deeply at the underlying causes of migration … Could we not find a more rational approach to providing protection? I believe the time has come for an international debate".

707
Two years have passed. I wonder whether the present Foreign Secretary still holds these optimistic views, let alone the present Home Secretary, or whether he believes that this international debate is really taking place. Perhaps the Minister will say what has happened to the EU High Level Working Group, for example, which was to examine all the dimensions of migration and of which much was expected two years ago. There is a real risk that the world—or Europe at least—is turning inwards and looking to its own frontiers, stemming the tide of asylum more like the Dutch boy in the dyke than the statesmen of Europe.
But let us look at the positive side, the gateways, starting with the plan to resettle refugees in the UK. The idea of resettlement quotas has been around for decades. I remember discussing it with NGOs and embassies in Hong Kong and Bangkok at the time of the Vietnamese boat people. The scheme proposed in Clause 47 has been used for many years by the United States and Canada—which received significant numbers—and the Scandinavian countries.
When do the Government plan to start this scheme, which is long overdue? What numbers will be involved? It should not be a token number like 500, as we see in White Paper; it should be a recognised EU gateway for the tens of thousands already processed by the UNHCR. It is easy now to forget the time when encouragement of refugees was a right and a necessity rather than a luxury. Could not this scheme's success send a positive message to all asylum seekers who have Sangatte luggage labels, or do the Government fear, as some do, that the scheme may he too successful and that the gateway will too quickly be seen as the more legitimate route to asylum?
When I first read the Lisbon speech two years ago I was under the impression that there would be regional gateways to Britain all over the world. Is it too much to hope that the embassies will be able to interview asylum seekers in the care of the United Nations who might otherwise face the appalling risks and costs of a journey to the port of entry? After all, we are now going to see gateways for skilled migrants for agreed periods, with welcome signs in Delhi or Islamabad saying "Doctors this way", and advertisements in Kampala and Nairobi saying, "Accountants are needed". Why not refugees? They have skills.
Do the Government deliberately intend to attract genuine refugees within their managed migration policy, or are they to wait in their own long queue which, in the end, leads to despair, to frustration and, quite possibly, as I have already mentioned, to crime? I am not describing periods of emergency where there is a perceived aim of temporary resettlement, as happened successfully in Kosovo. I am referring to acute personal situations where there is a recognised need for evacuation and resettlement, probably on a permanent basis.
Jack Straw's speech went even wider than this. It referred to the identification of countries and ethnic groups "facing a high level of persecution", in contrast to "safe countries". The Home Office has run into
708
trouble over white lists and safe countries already and may not wish to pursue this, but I should be grateful if the Minister could say how far this idea has progressed. My noble friend Lord Listowel will ask about the precise role of the Department for International Development in supporting countries of first asylum.
There are many questions which I know the Government cannot yet answer. It is to their credit that they are exploring them, but we do need the answers. I know that they want to restore confidence in the asylum system. I wish them well in their efforts this week to achieve a European solution. But I believe that one way forward is to place greater emphasis on applications from genuine cases well beyond the gateways of Europe. I hope that the Minister will show how this is being done as a matter of urgency.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure I speak for others in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on initiating this important debate and on the way in which he introduced it. It is characteristic of his contributions to the House.
The debate is timely because next week the Second Reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will take place. I am extremely frustrated because it clashes with a sitting of the Procedure Committee at which I shall have to be present. Ten days or two weeks later we shall then have the Committee stage, and again I shall be frustrated because my responsibilities in the Council of Europe mean that I shall probably be in Chechnya. There is a big problem in Chechnya with those who are, if not technically and legally refugees, displaced people, with which the Council of Europe is trying to grapple.
It is also timely because, as the noble Earl reminded us, this is refugee week. Today, the Refugee Council has brought out an extremely interesting publication, Credit to the Nation. We might well have taken as our text for the debate today a quotation contained in that publication from the Conservative MP, Lord Malmesbury, in 1852, who said:
"I can well conceive the pleasure and happiness of a refugee, hunted from his native land, on approaching the shores of England, the joy with which he first catches sight of them; but they are not greater than the pleasure and happiness every Englishman feels on knowing that his country affords the refugee a home and safety".
That is a telling text for our deliberations this evening.
In its publication the Refugee Council very effectively tells the story of the immense cultural and economic contribution that waves of refugees have made to this country. As regards numbers, the report contains some interesting statistics. It talks, for example, of the 150,000 Protestant refugees who came from the Spanish Netherlands and France between 1560 and 1700. It talks about the 200,000 Jewish refugees who came from Poland, Russia, Austria and Rumania between 1880 and 1914. It talks about the Belgians during the Second World War; the refugees in the run-up to the Second World War from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia; Basque refugee children;

709
Polish refugees; the refugees fleeing Nazism; refugees from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Rumania during the Cold War, and so on. All this helps to put our present preoccupations very much in perspective.
The point that I want to make in the brief time available is that it is important to have a perspective and to see our present situation against the historical background. As I have said, this has resulted in very important contributions to the well-being of this country, and indeed has led to refugees and their offspring playing an important part in the other place and in this House.
I want to dwell for a moment on public attitudes. Notwithstanding the sensationalism of the press, there is a great deal of research to suggest that the general public in Britain are infinitely more enlightened about refugees and what causes people to become refugees than the popular press might suggest. They understand persecution, war, suffering and torture.
The one issue on which the general public is extraordinarily ill informed is the numbers. These have somehow been inflated in the public perception beyond all reality, sometimes by a factor of 10. It seems to me that this places a heavy responsibility on government information to ensure that the facts regarding the numbers are understood—just as it places a heavy responsibility on the media: how can a free society and democracy work if the media, which are the lifeblood of the democratic system in terms of the quality of information available, are deliberately and sensationally distorting the realities?
Whether we are talking about immigration in general—and one cannot disentangle the refugee situation from the general challenges of immigration—we must recognise that it is impossible for the United Kingdom to solve the problem on its own. There must be effective international agreements. But they must be global agreements. For example, there is much talk about the need for a European Union policy. But do we ask ourselves what a European Union policy will do for countries immediately outside the European Union which may find their challenges and their problems greatly accentuated by the "fortress European Union" approach? The responsibility must be global in the way we approach this matter.
Finally, as with immigration policy in general, I fear that in refugee policy we are too concerned about the dangers from the extreme Right. We are told that we have to listen to people; we must be seen firmly to be managing a situation because people are anxious. But I put it to the House that one of the reasons for the upsurge of the extreme Right has been a failure of leadership and a failure of determination to present the challenges. We cannot do it all ourselves. But there is world of difference between seeing refugees and the whole issue of human rights associated with refugees as an unfortunate inheritance from a post-Second World War era—an approach that we want to try to minimise in its implications for us practically—and
710
seeing them as a challenge which we are determined to do our best to answer, together with other nations which share our philosophy.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Judd—whom I thank for his moving quotation from Lord Malmesbury—I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this Unstarred Question for purposes of clarification of a subject that we do not often have the chance to discuss in measured tones.
I must confess to the House that when I believed that this debate would take place in the dinner hour I arranged for a guest to arrive to dine with me at 8.30. I shall seek to stay to the end of the debate, but I ask your Lordships' forbearance if I have to leave the Chamber at 8.30 to organise my guest's welfare.
I shall deal with resettlement first, as it seems more germane as a vehicle for genuine refugees than managed migration. I do of course realise that some genuine refugees, as the noble Earl suggested, may still make use of the latter method referred to in his Question.
I have my own understanding of how Her Majesty's Government propose internationally to run their resettlement programme with the co-operation of the UNHCR, and it seems at first blush thorough. I understand that the admirable purposes that it is intended to fulfil are both positive in the interests of individual refugees and defensive against the traffickers.
The Government have provided an assurance that the programme will be additional to current asylum procedures, and there only remains the question adduced by Oxfam, the Refugee Council and the Commission for Racial Equality as to whether there is any possibility of refugees seeking asylum by other means being differently regarded, as I fear may be the case with Afghans in Australia. I did myself once see an Afghan in Broken Hill in 1959, but he had of course come in to Australia through 19th century managed migration long before there was a white Australia policy. I hope that shall hear a firm statement on this aspect from the Minister when he replies.
I also welcome the fact that the Refugee Council looks forward to contributing to more detailed proposals by drawing on its extensive experience of previous refugee programmes, including Chile, Vietnam, Bosnia and Kosovo.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, managed migration seems more marginal towards genuine refugees, but I have three questions after I have welcomed, first, the creation of a one-stop shop in the OLS to stamp passports for in-house applications and, secondly, the pilot scheme for multinational companies to issue their own permits for senior employees transferring to the UK from within their own organisations. From long experience as a constituency MP, I can say that these are good modifications or concessions.

711
My first question on managed migration arises from the fact that 67,000 work permits were granted in 2000, which rose to 104,000 in 2001—a rise of more than 50 per cent in a year. What kind of scale of future rise do the Government envisage, especially given that the maximum length of a work permit is rising from four years to five?
My second question, which I infer a priori does not relate to genuine refugees, is the practice to which the Professional Contractors Group has drawn attention, of firms circulating skilled people through this country on a six-month cycle in order to save employment obligations. In other words, they are not so much responding to skills shortages as effecting skills replacements.
My final question has a global implication. It relates to the precise rules concerning students not returning home after their studies—which strikes me as being inherently unfriendly to their country of origin given the terms on which their student visa was originally granted.
8.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I, too, want to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate. Generally speaking, I welcome the Government's White Paper—it is a qualified welcome perhaps, but in general terms a welcome—and I am sorry that I shall be unable to be present for the Second Reading on Monday.
The terms of the Unstarred Question invite comment on the notion of managed migration and the notion of genuine refugees and on the background issues that we have to bear in mind. Managed migration can bring considerable benefits to the United Kingdom, as the White Paper states, including improvements in economic growth and productivity, as well as cultural enrichment and diversity. But to quote the White Paper, "managing" migration properly means having an orderly, organised and enforceable system of entry. It also means managing post-entry integration and inclusion in the economy and society, helping migrants to find their feet and enabling members of the existing population to welcome them into their communities. Those are big issues.
"Managed migration" by definition is primarily work-related, but it also needs to provide for asylum-related migration, which is by definition unpredictable and demands flexibility, imagination, compassion and a willingness to act quickly when circumstances demand that.
Among the background issues to this whole sphere of debate are enormously changed global patterns of migration, which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned. Perhaps we ought also to look forward to the time when, certainly within two generations if not within one, there will be millions of ecological migrants caused by rising sea levels and the effects of climate change. These are issues to do with migration that have hardly begun to impinge on people in the northern hemisphere.
712
There are important issues to do with the relationship between good management of migration policy and the need for responsible policies of deterrence for those who are simply frivolous or self-interested or who have sadly fallen into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers.
There is the role of the private sector, particularly in connection with integration, of the voluntary agencies and of the faith communities. I hope that the faith communities will not simply be used in an ambulance role, as has been the case in certain instances in the recent past.
There is considerable need for managed migration to include provision not only for those with specific skills which we need and want in this country, but also for those prepared to undertake unskilled work where chronic vacancies exist in our economic system.
There is the problem of the Home Office assessment of countries from which genuine refugees are coming. It is still a very hit and miss process, and it is often not very quick to spot changes that are coming to pass in other countries—notably, for example, in recent times in Zimbabwe.
Generally speaking, however, the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England welcomes the Government's intention to establish legitimate forms of economic migration into the United Kingdom and believes that such a system will actually help to reduce the number of those seeking to come into this country by illegal means. We shall have to bear in mind and monitor carefully what any highly skilled migration programme will mean for the countries from which migrants come.
The White Paper highlights overseas remittances as a benefit of economic migration for developing countries, and of course that it true. However, Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, recently said that it would be,
"outrageous if countries like the UK just go out unselectively to recruit the skilled people they need regardless of the need of the country concerned".
I am not quite sure how we will manage that aspect of managed migration. However, there is clearly a need to balance the needs of the country of origin, the individual's professional and personal aspirations and the needs of the country to which they hope to come.
The Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England is very glad to see in the White Paper proposals to establish a national refugee integration forum, which through its working groups could assist in identifying practical solutions to enabling successful applicants to rebuild their lives and play a full part within the community, and recognises that that type of rebuilding and integration will need to take place with partnership. The board therefore hopes very much that the Government will bear in mind the extensive networks belonging to the Churches and the faith communities which could be effectively deployed to help integration schemes such as the mentoring scheme outlined in the White Paper.

713
The most important point the Churches would want to make in relation to this brief debate is that, warmly as we welcome a more coherent scheme of management for clearly defined categories of immigrants—I have tried to say that I think that those will be very different categories—we underline the need for a readiness to act quickly and compassionately in response to urgent and unpredictable demands for asylum by genuine refugees, and that this action may well be quite different from anything that can be provided by even the most wise and carefully laid management plan.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, following the noble Lords before me, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this extremely important debate. He has an excellent record of work in this area and we are all indebted to him for it.
Given the current state of the world, it is obvious that more and more people from the poorer and war-stricken parts of the world should be desperate to enter the affluent parts of the West. Some want to escape persecution; others want to escape acute poverty. As all research shows, really poor people generally do not migrate; they simply do not have the resources, or the resourcefulness, or the contacts. As for the skilled professional classes, they either do not need to migrate because their countries can look after them, or they are eagerly sought after by the affluent West.
The potential pool of migrants generally consists of young people with some skill—but not very high skills—and some resourcefulness who see no hope for themselves in their countries. Although their number is large, it is not too large and too unmanageable. Obviously we cannot take them all in and need to develop a sensible and humane policy. The Government are beginning to move in the right direction, but I think that they need to go a little further. I suggest that we need to develop a humane and just immigration and asylum policy based on the following four principles.
First, I greatly welcome the Government's programme for highly skilled migrants. We desperately need such people. I also welcome the working holidaymakers scheme and the plan to open it up to non-white immigrants from the Commonwealth countries. About 40,000 people are admitted under it, and they are allowed to work in Britain for up to two years. I also welcome the plans to expand the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and to extend it to other parts of agricultural industry and to other nonagricultural industries such as hospitality and construction. This should increase the current number of workers from about 20,000 to almost double that number. All this should open up more routes to those who want to come to work here.
Secondly, when determining the claims of asylum seekers, we need to take into account not only the likelihood of persecution but also desperate economic circumstances. People die when they are tortured as
714
well as when they starve. There is nothing wrong in being an economic migrant. Many of us who are now happily settled here in Britain were once economic migrants. Thousands whom we have accepted in the past were economic migrants and the country has greatly benefited from them. I suggest therefore that we should operate with a wider set of criteria than we seem to do at present. Individuals may not be physically persecuted, but deliberately starved or denied jobs or denied means of survival. These are all forms of persecution, although they are indirect in nature, and their victims have a legitimate claim to our help.
Thirdly, when people come to our doorstep they deserve to be treated humanely and their basic human rights must be respected. That is the point that we have constantly made on the Select Committee on Human Rights, and our report on the government Bill points out where there is a danger of these human rights being violated. We are obligated to respect human rights because of our treaty obligations as well as because we are signatories to international human rights conventions.
If the claims of asylum seekers turn out to be untenable, they should certainly be sent back; on this there can be no compromise. Nor can we allow criminal gangs to traffic in human beings. They must be tracked and smashed. However, it is extremely important that when asylum seekers come to our doorstep their claims should be fairly assessed and they should have a proper right of appeal. They have basic human rights and these can never be forfeited even if their claims turn out to be untenable. If some of them have untenable claims, we should not treat them as a dangerous nuisance to be quickly jettisoned. If they cannot be returned to a safe country, we should take a humane view of them. If they have stayed here long enough or have friends and ethnic support, we should take this into account. We should not in any case put them up in places unfit for human beings or which are likely to be sources of violence and disorder.
Finally, just as we cannot deal with terrorism without tackling the deeper economic and political causes of terrorism, we cannot tackle unwanted migration without addressing its deeper and real causes. Those causes are undeveloped economies and political instability. We must therefore make sure that we do nothing, consciously or subconsciously, that destabilises poor societies or foments ethnic strife. I am afraid that in that respect our best record has not always been honourable.
Above all, we should increase aid to those countries, offer them better trade agreements than we have done so far, build up their economic infrastructures, and not use the IMF and World Bank to impose untenable and unworkable programmes of economic reforms, many of which are partly responsible for causing a flux of asylum seekers. My own limited research suggests that at least a quarter of asylum seekers come from countries for whose sorry plight we bear at least some responsibility.

715
In short, our immigration and asylum policies should be guided by three fundamental principles: first, national interest; secondly, moral obligations to those who have not done as well as we have; and, thirdly, the spirit of humanity and respect for human rights. In other words, we want a morally tempered but realistic immigration and asylum policy, administered in a spirit of charity.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sandwich for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I trust that the Government will give us a very positive reply and not just say that managed migration and resettlement, in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, depends, first, on new legislation and, secondly, on the provision of extra funds.
If joint plans for reception can be made with the UNHCR, this country will be seen to be taking, or at least trying to take, a fair share of the world's refugees. We will also receive genuine refugees, who have been pre-assessed. That will avoid the need for elaborate and costly assessments and appeals in the United Kingdom. Such a method would save much time and expense. If it could be applied, for example, to France— let us say in Paris—and there the UNHCR could shortlist genuine refugees who have good reasons for wanting to settle in England, many attempts at illegal entry through the tunnel or in small boats, with consequential deaths and disruption to freight traffic, might be prevented.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, I mention three principles that should guide us in considering both immigration and asylum. They are knowledge of the English language, close family relationships and connection with Britain.
It goes without saying that knowledge of English is the key to employability and integration into society. In the case of fiancées and spouses wishing to join people already settled here, priority could be given to English speakers. Provided that they have enrolled on an English course, grants might be made to those who do not speak English but are nevertheless admitted. A special situation would arise for people applying to enter in order to become leaders of religious communities. They will need to understand the local contexts in which they have to work and be able to communicate with other communities and authorities. For those reasons, it should be a condition of entry that they have at least a working knowledge of spoken English. Looking now to cases of asylum and exceptional leave to remain, a knowledge of English could be the deciding factor in borderline cases, and there are bound to be such cases.
Already, for many years the great majority of non-citizens admitted from overseas have been close family relatives. That is absolutely right and proper. It strengthens family units, which is declared government policy, and accords with the European Convention on Human Rights. I should like to see family reunion written into the new Bill, perhaps on
716
the lines of the existing Canadian legislation of 1978. The principle of family reunion will, of course, embrace both ordinary immigration and asylum issues.
The third principle, which I mentioned earlier, is in connection with this country. That concept goes much wider than family ties. Some individuals may have spent time here, thus acquiring friends, or they may have been educated here. Alternatively, they may now be able to point to the existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic community in this country that is able to give support and acceptance to the newly-arrived immigrant or asylum seeker. Community support: of that kind can make an otherwise painful reorientation very much easier. We have seen that process in action with Irish, Indian, African and Kurdish communities, to name but a few.
I commend these principles to the Government. I wish the Government well in their efforts to achieve a common European definition of a refugee and a real improvement on the existing Dublin Convention. I urge them to be bold with the new domestic legislation and, above all, to present both immigration and asylum to the public in the positive light that it deserves.
In conclusion, I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Will the Government, even at this late stage, give a lead that counters the vicious prejudices that have dominated the tabloid press for so long?
8.36 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate.
It was Samuel Taylor Coleridge—sadly, not a relative—who said,
"In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly".
Much of the political rhetoric concerning asylum and immigration has historically been motivated by fear—fear of the foreigner, fear of those who look or sound different. But, in principle, I view these proposals as a mature, albeit modest, step forward. They appear to recognise the basic fact that the United Kingdom has a skills shortage and needs to attract, rather than repel, migration. Of course, the success of this policy will depend on the detail.
I also welcome the more constructive tone now adopted on these issues by the Conservative Party, in particular by Mr Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary. His intelligent comments have brought light rather than heat to the ongoing debate.
The mood of the nation has recently been lifted by two events. The Queen's Golden Jubilee and the World Cup festivities have caused a resurgence of the Union flag and the Cross of St. George. For some years, those national emblems have been hijacked by the far Right. I am delighted that the nation has reclaimed those symbols for its proper use.
It is also an inspiration to see black Englishmen, such as Rio Ferdinand, Sol Campbell, Ashley Cole, Emile Heskey, Trevor Sinclair, Darius Vassell, Kieran

717
Dyer, David James and Wes Brown all helping the England soccer team to glory in the World Cup—not forgetting Nasser Hussain, captain of the victorious England cricket team, and thousands more from the ethnic minority communities who are not famous but who contribute to the nation's prosperity.
With regard to the proposals themselves, I have to declare an interest. One of the companies that I chair, Warwick Communications, advises private and public sector organisations on diversity issues. Racial diversity opens a window to the world. Through migration, the United Kingdom can continue to compete in the global market place. Managed migration will help to build bridges, not walls, between races.
There is little evidence that host workers suffer by losing jobs to migrants. On the contrary, migrants create new business and fill labour market gaps. However, migration must never become a substitute for other policies concerning skills, education and training. Moreover, it seems sensible that migrants should be proficient in English and have some understanding of our constitution.
As to the principle of refugee resettlement into the United Kingdom, that is also a positive step. But I agree with organisations such as Oxfam, the Refugee Council and the Commission for Racial Equality that resettlement must not be used as a way of undermining the rights of many asylum seekers who claim protection from persecution under the current asylum procedure. Resettlement should be additional to, not a replacement of, the asylum procedures. The asylum system itself must be improved by resolving cases far more quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. I am not convinced that large camps in rural areas are the answer.
There is also an important ethical point. Taking skilled workers such as doctors and nurses may harm the development of poorer countries. That must increase the moral obligation of richer nations like ours to tackle issues such as third world debt and international trade, including the arms trade.
The information superhighway can transport facts, ideas and opinions across all racial and cultural divides within seconds. The only barrier it cannot penetrate is the closed heart. Those who totally oppose—and there are some—a sensible migration and resettlement policy need to understand one thing: the same fence that they would use to shut others out will shut them in.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Sandwich for providing us with the opportunity to debate managed migration. I shall concentrate my remarks on Jack Straw's speech in Lisbon two years ago and his comments on the need to improve conditions in the regions of origin. But before I do so, I should like to say a word or two about genuine refugees.
718
Through UNICEF and Centrepoint I have had the privilege of making the acquaintance of a few young people; for example, a young woman from Sierra Leone whose sister had been murdered by the rebel armies and a young man from Sierra Leone who had been abducted and kept in the jungle for several months. I have met other young people; for example, a young man from Afghanistan who had taken a photograph, I believe at the age of 14, of two members of the Taliban bullying an elderly woman. He was then knocked to the ground by the butts of their rifles. When they went to his home they found more film of a similar kind. It is important to bear in mind such young people.
I had the pleasure over several months of getting to know a young man from Kosovo. He exhibited quite clearly vulnerability, the potential to make a real contribution to a society and also the stress that asylum seekers can put on our overstretched services in London and the South East. He was an extraordinary young man. When we used to play chess together he usually beat me. At the end of the game he knew exactly what to say to make me feel better about losing. He usually said something along the lines of, "I so enjoyed playing with you". That did not in the least come across as patronising as it was so genuine coming from him. He was always immaculately turned out and well coiffed. He lived in a hostel.
There is a shortage of accommodation—and was particularly at that time—for these young people. Consequently, that young man lived in an emergency hostel for at least two months when the normal stay was about 10 days. He found it difficult to sleep at night. There was no quiet place in the hostel. The television room and the dining room were noisy. The young people were not allowed into the bedrooms until shortly before the bedtime hour. However, he was always polite towards me and always generous towards his fellow residents in the hostel. He had a mobile phone which he was happy to lend to other residents to play games on. The young man's father was a teacher in his home country. Perhaps he blurs into an economic migrant. I am not sure what were his reasons for coming to this country in the first place. He had extended leave to remain. But perhaps by the end of his stay he could have returned to his home country. However, I believe that he very much wanted to establish a family in this country and to train to work with computers. I know that if he did so, he would be a great contributor to our society.
Such young people are vulnerable. They are alone and young in this country. They are susceptible to other people, perhaps in the hostel, who are not perhaps the best influence, and to other asylum seekers who are not perhaps the best influence. They are separated from their families and susceptible to those people. I hope that it is helpful to remember the genuine refugees.
I should like to discuss now trying to tackle the roots of the problem, as many other speakers have done, and of looking with vision to the global issues beyond our immediate concerns in this country. I should like to

719
give an example. I have an information briefing paper from DfID on what it has been doing over the past four years in the Balkans. The document states:
"UK bilateral assistance to the Balkans over the last four years has been £153 million humanitarian aid and £62 million technical and financial assistance. The UK share of EC assistance over the same period was £1 billion".
United Kingdom assistance has been central in levering up an international aid effort in the Balkans that has had significant impact on stabilising the region, meeting immediate needs and laying the foundations for longer-term development.
The document continues by stating that four years ago,
"Kosovo was under federal military control and Kosovar Albanians were excluded from government and public service … There were 600,000 displaced persons and refugees across the region".
The document further states that two years later,
"750,000 Kosovar Albanians had resettled in Kosovo after being forcibly expelled in March 1999".
I see that I have come to the end of the time that is allotted to me to speak. That document provides a good example of what can be achieved with the right intervention. I should he grateful if the Minister could say what more DfID is doing on those lines.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, on introducing the debate. It has been fascinating listening to so many experts in this field. I am not an expert on immigration. I became interested in the subject as a result of the problems of what might be called clandestines, asylum seekers or illegal immigrants that arise at Calais with regard to Channel Tunnel rail freight. I am afraid that I have on occasions bored your Lordships with that subject. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
Progress has been made as regards Channel Tunnel rail freight after the French elections and there are grounds for hope for rail freight. However, I have concerns about the effect on genuine refugees which I should like to explore. The biggest problem at Calais, and that with the highest profile, has been caused by those who might be called economic migrants who are generally organised by gangs who arrange their passage flexibly and fast. They encourage their "customers" to seek out any chink in the armour surrounding the British Isles, usually at a cost of several thousand pounds. The migrants are told to tear up any documentation or identification they have on the way across so that they cannot immediately be returned to France under the terms of the Dublin Convention. Most of them have the phone number of a human rights lawyer and one or two are actually accompanied by them in case they get into any trouble. Of course, as your Lordships know, many hundreds enter the country every week. That has had a disastrous effect on Channel Tunnel rail freight, but one should not forget the appalling effect that it has also had on the communities around Calais, Folkestone and Dover.
720
My concern is that the welcome attempt of the two Governments to deal with the problem may not take into account sufficiently the needs of the genuine asylum seeker. I am no great expert on the business of seeking asylum under the Geneva Convention, but I have listened with interest to many debates in your Lordships' House. However, I do not believe that many such asylum seekers have the money to pay gangs several thousand pounds to come here or that they have a friendly British Embassy in which they can claim asylum and not be attacked on their way out. Can one imagine that occurring in Harare recently if someone had happened to oppose Mr Mugabe? The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has just given us some moving examples of such cases in other countries. Those people would probably be beaten up if they got out at all.
My question is: realistically how can people apply for asylum without entering this country apparently illegally? My concern is that, by stopping the economic migrants, which, to a large extent, I consider to be necessary, the genuine asylum seekers will not be able to enter the country and will not know how to do so. I believe that there needs to be a more equitable process for fulfilling our humanitarian and legal obligations in relation to this category of people while keeping out those whom we may not want.
One suggestion would be to arrange some type of processing in a third, safe, country, which, in my limited experience, might be France. It does not have to take place at Sangatte; it could occur elsewhere. But I hope that at least there would be a way of dealing with people fairly and humanely and without taking too long about it. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, they are not supplicants or beggars, and I believe that we need to deal with them humanely.
We need a flexible policy which is capable of dealing with the ever-changing ruses of these human traffickers—and they do change frequently. If the problems relating to the Channel Tunnel and rail freight are sorted out, we should not expect the asylum seekers to go away. They will go to the next port up and down the Continent and will enter the country a different way. That must be tackled in a humane way while making it reasonably easy and practical for genuine asylum seekers to be treated fairly and speedily and to be allowed in.
Where managed migration comes into this, I am not sure, but I hope that it will not be done on a cost-benefit basis. There is a need to allow asylum seekers to be processed in a place where they are not constantly being attacked and in a manner in which they do not have to try to enter this country illegally.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on securing this debate, which, significantly, is taking place during Refugee Week. It is therefore appropriate for your Lordships' House to dispel some myths about refugees.

721
Refugees are generally people who have no intention of leaving their homeland until a catastrophe occurs. As a result, they come unprepared to Europe and the United Kingdom. They are unlikely to be brought here by illegal gangs.
Negative attitudes towards refugees continue to receive press coverage, in spite of the finding of a new public opinion poll, published yesterday, carried out by MORI Social Research Institute. That new research found that the British public are broadly four times more sympathetic than hostile towards asylum seekers and refugees. It also showed that young people overestimate by 10 times the number of the world's refugees and asylum seekers present in the United Kingdom. There is a popular but unfounded assertion that refugees in the United Kingdom are attracted here by our social benefits system because they are poorly educated and unskilled. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I quote from the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning. The society lists as refugees 17 Nobel laureates, 71 fellows or foreign members of the Royal Society, and 50 fellows or corresponding fellows of the British Academy. Some of Britain's wealthiest entrepreneurs are refugees, such as the late Lord Hamlyn, publisher of Reed International Books, and Mr Rolf Schild of Huntleigh Engineering.
Migrants, on the other hand, are not refugees because they make a conscious choice to leave their country. Migrants are able to plan their departure from their homeland. Many people living in the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are migrants. Those countries accepted them because they possessed the skills needed.
Our Government only recently—on 28th January—launched their Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. It allows individuals to seek entry to work in the United Kingdom without a prior offer of employment. People with skills and experience required by the United Kingdom to compete in the global economy can migrate through the programme.
Among those we need are doctors, nurses and other professionals required in the National Health Service. Some refugees in the United Kingdom have the skills that we require, and they should therefore be given the opportunity to apply for settlement through the migrant programme. Some 2,000 refugee doctors in the United Kingdom are just beginning to obtain help to re-enter medical practice through a little-known programme of the Department of Health. I welcome that programme.
One disadvantage of the Government's Highly Skilled Migrant Programme is the adverse effect that it might have on developing countries were we to employ their skilled professionals. The resulting brain-drain of talent from less developed countries to the United Kingdom may not be morally acceptable. But it gives individuals the choice of migrating to a country that gives them better opportunities for improving themselves.
722
Therefore, while congratulating and supporting the Government on their Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, I ask Ministers to monitor the flow of migrants under the programme according to country of origin. Regular reviews of the programme will help the Government to adjust the intake of skilled people according to our employment needs. I hope that the spectrum of skills will be widened to include chefs and cooks for our restaurants, as well as computer engineers.
Finally, the Government now have the opportunity, through managed migration and resettlement, to reclaim leadership of this important and sensitive issue in order to achieve harmony in our multi-ethnic society.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate. It comes at a time when the Government are in the process of introducing another Bill dealing with national, immigration and asylum matters. Its Second Reading is to take place next Monday in your Lordships' House. That demonstrates that the previous three measures have not been effective and that we are still not at ease with some of these matters.
I recall discussing in the middle of the night some of the contentious issues of that time with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, whom I see in his place. We said that the voucher system would not work, and it did not. We said that fining lorry drivers and impounding the lorries would not work, and it did not. And we said that the unplanned dispersal of people would not work. Again, that was the case. I hope that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will listen very carefully not only to the arguments that are put forward here but also to some of the suggestions made during the Second Reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. On that basis, I hope that some consensus will be reached in dealing with this issue.
There is a contradiction in the way that asylum matters are being handled. We pay lip service to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. This is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes a right to seek political asylum. However, many of the policies pursued by the Government are based on toughness rather than the principles of compassion and humanity on which the convention is based.
Last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the UN convention. We have a proud history of offering shelter to those fleeing persecution. Yet the emphasis that we give to that obligation has changed out of all recognition. Much of the tabloid coverage is negative. The noble Earl is right that asylum seekers are often branded as cheats, scroungers and beggars. It is frightening and a shame that some politicians give credence to such generalisation.
There is a concern that the current system is failing many refugees. There is little acceptance that migration is now a world-wide phenomenon. It is not

723
just western countries which are affected. Developing and third world countries probably cater for the largest number of displaced persons.
We need to address three issues: immigration in a global economy; economic migrants; and refugees and asylum seekers. A debate about what a modern and effective immigration policy should look like needs to be defined. It should not be a reaction to emotional outpourings of tabloid newspapers or a knee-jerk reaction to political pointscoring. We need to draw on many complex and inter-related issues.
I have a fundamental disagreement with the way in which the Government have set out their objectives on immigration policy. The government paper refers to,
"Regulation of entry to and settlement in the United Kingdom in the interest of stability and economic growth and facilitation of travel by UK citizens".
That is a simplistic statement on immigration and asylum matters. Immigration should be looked at on the basis of potentially huge economic benefits for Britain if it is able to adapt to the new environment of global economy. Its aim should not be restricted to protecting our society and economy from external pressures. We also need to manage the opportunities at a time when we have a skilled labour shortage, a declining population and an ageing population. The cost of mismanaging immigration could have dire economic consequences for generations to come. If we fail to produce wealth, then we cannot sustain health, education, pensions and service provisions for the future generation. That is the stark reality and countries like the US, Canada and Germany have realised that.
The process of asylum over the past 10 years is a relatively new phenomenon. The entry of over 70,000 people has skewed the debate on migration. There is a lack of clarity about the process of economic migration and primary migration to the United Kingdom has virtually come to a halt.
So what are the issues? They are the need to identify genuine refugees as quickly as possible, but speed should not sacrifice fairness. Migration is not simply about economics. We all benefit by the enrichment of our social and cultural lives. The whole area of immigration cries out for more research. What brings people here? What are their skills? How do they settle in their new environment? Does migration interact with social stability? Flow do we raise the level of political debate? How do we challenge many of the assumptions which are made? What are the factors which pull and push people to different parts of the world?
Immigration and asylum matters go beyond national boundaries. We now require international solutions. A Europe-wide policy must be a starting point. But, first, we need to look at conditions that bring despair and trigger the process of migration. Poverty, disease and safety are their main concerns. Not everyone travels across continents. Most find shelter on the other side of the national boundaries.
Secondly, the balance between money spent in assessing applications, estimated at about …10 billion, is out of all proportion to money spent in the
724
protection of displaced persons. Thirdly, there is a clear need for the UNHCR to enlarge its resettlement programme. A logical solution must be a common EU asylum system: a UNHCR clearing house which will identify genuine asylum seekers in their own homelands and involve European countries in their resettlement. Why have we not progressed in assessing asylum claims overseas?
The rhetoric about the new asylum package sounds hollow and is designed to placate those with Little Englander attitudes. Using overseas aid as a lever to deport failed applicants, a rapid reaction multinational border guard or the use of the RAF or Royal Navy to tackle seaborne illegal immigrants will simply not work. Asylum is now an international issue. We need leadership which acknowledges the vast contribution made by refugees all over the world. We wait for the Government to give a lead; so far they have failed.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has every right to feel pleased with the debate today. The subject is topical. It is a difficult subject which fits with my philosophy of life: an endless Grand National. Every time you cross a fence there is another one before you; and when you cross that there is another one. And when we are all gone, our successors will be crossing those fences all over again.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who in completely different ways put in clear perspective the great benefit this country has gained in the past from migrants. As I am sure do other Member of this House, I know many people who are members of families who years ago would have been refugees and who now regard themselves as British and nothing but British because they are a part of our society. One sees them in academic fields, across the world of business, throughout the arts and so on. Let there be no doubt about the benefits that this country has enjoyed in the past and I have no doubt will continue to enjoy in the future.
However, we need to recognise that there are problems of definition. I have great difficulty in trying to make a distinction between a refugee and an asylum seeker. It seems to me that by definition an asylum seeker is a refugee. The circumstances which have forced a genuine applicant to this country are not voluntary. These are people who through force of circumstances are obliged to leave the country from which they come. Those people should enjoy every sympathy and assistance. I like to think that we are still able to deal with them in that way.
The problem is that the situation is no longer straightforward. The world has changed. In many ways the change is good; in some ways it is bad. The past century has seen an enormous expansion of rich people in the world. We are fortunate in this country to be able to include ourselves in that category. The reciprocal of that has been an enormous expansion in

725
poverty in the world. I believe that will always be a problem that we have to face. In any event, poverty is a relative term. What is meant by poverty in this country would be seen in many other countries of the world as extreme riches. We need to bear that in mind.
The fact of the matter is that, of those trying to enter this country today, there are many very genuine and real refugees who deserve asylum, but regrettably at the present time, and partly because of the change that has taken place in global transport systems and other aspects of globalisation, there are many people who are not genuine applicants. Indeed, the Government are doing sterling work in trying to sort out the real from the unreal, if I may put it that way. Their research seems to suggest—taking the present level of asylum seekers at about 80,000 a year—that about 10,000 are genuine applicants and the rest should return.
We have a problem because the vast majority who ought to be returned, regrettably, are not being sent back. That is really muddying the pond, if I may use a very blunt phrase in the vernacular. The Bill which the Government are going to bring before us in the near future is designed to help. If we build the three asylum reception centres which are now spoken about, with a total capacity of 3,000, they will not be functioning in much less than two years. On the current government targets there will be a throughput of about 6,000 refugees a year, with the intention of dealing with them in six months.
There is a total input into this country of 80,000 refugees a year, so processing 6,000 is playing with the problem. If we have 14 centres I acknowledge that we will do rather better. But if we are going to sort out this problem in the interests of this country and of the refugees who genuinely need help, we need a far greater concentration on producing results through the system than any suggestion I have yet seen coming from the Government for tackling this issue. To make a real dent in the problem we need to deal with these people in six weeks and not six months.
Returning to the question of managed migration, only when we have solved the present crisis will we be able to deal properly with that question. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, touched on another very fundamental issue, which is the ethical difficulty of removing the professional expertise of people from countries where it is desperately needed. This has been a very good debate and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
9.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I genuinely want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate and for the thoughtful and sober tone in which it has been conducted. It is well timed as a prelude to some of our other discussions next week. Its timing as regards Refugee Week could not be better.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, challenged me to speak positively about immigration and asylum. I am well pleased to do so, particularly in Refugee Week.
726
Immigrants have made a remarkable contribution to this country. We are a nation of immigrants and anyone who thinks otherwise does not know our history. Similarly, although not perfect, our record as a nation for taking in asylum seekers who have been in dire circumstances, such as the Huguenots and a sequence of cases in the past century, has been very good generally and it is something of which we should be rightly proud and from which we should not seek to resile.
As noble Lords have clearly put it, the problem is not whether we should in any way compromise our stance on our responsibility to refugees or the refugee convention of1951, but how one faces the fact that there is mass pressure, because of global wealth inequalities, for economic migration which is putting enormous pressure on the system and that people are using the asylum route to try to enter the country to better themselves, for understandable reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke clearly, powerfully and accurately on that.
As noble Lords know, the Government's strategy is to seek not to resile for a moment from our commitment in the 1951 Geneva Convention, although this debate has illustrated the importance of the review of that convention 50 years later. It was designed for a different world and although its principles and tenets are still sound, its mechanisms are open to question.
The importance of managed migration has been slightly underplayed. The Government have clearly stated that attracting a variety of workers to this country is to be welcomed. A variety of schemes that contribute to their personal wealth and to our economic wealth are to be celebrated, welcomed and managed.
We clearly need to rise to the enormous challenge of how to sustain the principles of fairness, of fair hearings, of appeals, and of giving welfare support to people who claim asylum when they may have been economic migrants. We also need to ensure that everyone is given a fair hearing, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said. That raises an enormous challenge, given the volumes being faced, and not to face up to that will not do justice to the reality of the situation.
The interesting challenge that Jack Straw faced in his speech about two years ago was to look more effectively at what is happening to migration, how it is putting almost unsustainable pressures on the conventional method of handling asylum claimants and how all countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world are struggling to balance those two forces that operate at the same time.
The desire to establish a quota resettlement programme should enable refugees to travel safely to the UK. Therefore, as many noble Lords have said, that is to be welcomed in principle. The then Home Secretary set out how we would seek to evolve such a scheme. It is an important humanitarian tool and clearly in the past we have had a recognition of a moral responsibility to make contributions to major crises in the world and to seek to play our part fully.

727
I am pleased to recognise that the EU is examining the feasibility of introducing a Europe-wide scheme. Last week I was in Luxembourg and listened to a commissioner speaking about his commitment to explore that. It will not be simple and it will not be quick, but it has common sense. If genuine refugees want to come into Europe one has to consider whether it is possible to ensure that there are some common principles and processes that evaluate them and a reasonably equal distribution of responsibility for handling them. Those words are easy to say but I would he deluding the House if I said that fulfilling them in practice could be done within two or three years. I do not believe that we should run away from that as a goal because the fact that some countries take more, as we do, because they have a well-developed system of welfare and legal support, appears not be a sensible way to proceed in the long term.
Therefore, building on the speech of Jack Straw, we want to expand the provisions of resettlement from some of our relatively smaller, informal schemes—the mandate refugee programme and the 10 or more plans. I have spoken previously about mass resettlements to the UK and I do not need to repeat the details of 300,000 Poles, or the quarter of a million plus Ugandan Asians, or the Chileans, the Vietnamese, the Bosnians or the Kosovans who have come here.
I hope that this country will always respond to such crises with an open generosity, as we have in the past. I hope that the spirit of the nation will recognise that we have responsibilities to support genuine refugees who are in crisis through no fault of their own. But I do not believe that we would be wise to consider that it is axiomatic or that it is automatic if governments are seen as being out of control on how they address economic migration which comes through the refugee door. It is naïve to pretend that there is not a serious problem facing the liberalism of many European countries in the face of those pressures.
If we have any doubt on that, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke with his usual blunt wisdom and fairly trenchantly about some of the realities. Many European countries are faced with gangs of international criminals who seek to do well out of the relative, if not the worst, poverty of some people. Many people who present themselves as refugees have come through those criminal networks. That does not automatically mean that they are not genuine asylum seekers, but they are people who have paid £10,000 or £15,000 to get into this country. In many cases they have been advised to tear up their documents and advised on how best to play the system.
That does not mean that Britain should not address her responsibilities for treating them fairly, give support and sustenance when they have made a claim and consider how to do that efficiently. We also have to be able to process those claims effectively, rapidly and fairly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we should try to achieve a higher success rate at returning those who are not genuine refugees.
The facts are not usually well publicised, but perhaps I may give our latest figures. About 70,000 or 80,000 asylum claimants enter Britain each year. Of
728
those, about 11 per cent are granted asylum after they have been through a usually sophisticated and thorough appeals system with legal aid rightly paid for by the British taxpayer. About another 12 per cent are given exceptional leave to remain. Noble Lords will know broadly what that means without my going into detail.
So some 23 per cent of claimants come through the system as genuine asylum seekers. Yet there is great difficulty returning the rest to their countries of origin for a variety of reasons that I shall not go into now. We are trying to improve our success factors. The problem is that if you have paid £10,000 or £15,000 to a gangmaster to try to get you into the country, you have taken a gamble, but if you find that your success rate is likely to be high, because people play the system and it is difficult for us to return them, it makes it extremely difficult for us to refute the argument that it is money well spent. Therefore, we must face up to the realities of what is going on out there in the real world, while at the same time not reneging on the values and principles we hold dear and on which this country has built its—I hope—proud history.
Unusually, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Judd on this issue. I believe that the public is tolerant of genuine refugees and I hope it will continue to be so. We should not assume that it will continue to be so if we fail to manage the economic migrant who wants to get in at the same time. I do not believe that the public are as tolerant of economic migration, nor is there support in the country for an open-door policy; nor do I hear any noble Lord arguing for it.
The challenge is to manage the short-term crisis while recognising the global forces at work. Noble Lords have pointed out that the people with whom we deal as asylum seekers may not be the most needy. Logic says that that is the case, because unless you can finance your route through that network you are not able to present. That is why UNHCR's programme, although small-scale at this stage, is important.
I shall have to race now because I am being encouraged to be brief. We are committed to rolling out these provisions as soon as we can. UN HCR is advising us not to go too quickly; to get the system right and to ensure that it is not another route to profiteering and criminality; to ensure that it works well and that we can therefore build credibility on it. There is also, as ever, the realistic touch of ensuring we have the funding through the CSR 2002 process. I hope that we are able to launch this scheme and that we are able to start the consultation with NGOs this summer.
It is a major issue to ensure more collective processes for dealing with genuine refugees sourced in-country, and to deal with the problem on a more collective basis across the world. While we should do our part—and we shall do our part on pioneering the scheme, as may the EU—we cannot pretend that we can do so in isolation. Such a system can be operated only if over time we can persuade a significant number of countries that this is a responsible and moral way of addressing the issue. Some countries are already there: the United States and Australia already use such measures.

729
There is a balance between experimenting and being Pollyanna-ish and thinking that in some way we will have such a system in two to three years' time—we will not, even though it is right to pursue and explore that approach positively. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that this scheme should not be seen as in any way undermining genuine refugees who come to us by other means.
How do we address global economic inequalities? We know at heart that that is what drives some, if not all, of the economic migration that is such a problem to us. While I disagree by thinking that we should take into account and re-house people whose economic plight is severe, I do not believe that that is realistic in terms of the nation that we are: we are not Canada, nor are we Australia. We are a small nation. We cannot just open the door to everyone who is poor. Indeed, arguably, it is not the most efficient way of doing so. We must have more realistic ways of addressing wealth development in the countries from where the migration is coming.
Therefore, the UNHCR's global consultation on the 1951 convention on refugees has called on states, NGOs and international bodies to take concerted action at all levels to solve protracted refugee situations, and to look at how we stabilise governance, legal systems, and put in place better prospects for economic growth in those countries. Again, we must not fool ourselves that this will be quick. However, it is an essential part of dealing responsibly with economic migration that comes to us in the form of asylum seeking.
I was also asked about the EU High Level Working Group, which is developing a voluntary return programme to Afghanistan to encourage return and to help in the reconstruction of the country. The UN HCR was consulted when this plan was developed,
730
and it is projected that 200 returns could well go forward when it is considered safe to do so. At present, there are also action plans developed for Iraq, Morocco, Albania, Somalia and Sri Lanka. It is in our interests at least to see whether we can pilot some of those collective mechanisms and resettlement programmes through the EU mechanism, which is slightly smaller, rather than seeking initially to obtain instant action on a global basis. If my recent experience is anything to go by, it does not always seem too simple in the European Union.
DfID has a clear role to play in this process. The department is undertaking a considerable amount of work in terms of refugee camps and as regards its wider programme of work on economic development. Regrettably, time will not allow me to say more than that this evening.
I turn, finally, to managed migration. I hope that I have made it clear that this is an important part of our policy. We realise that we should be welcoming migrants who can make a contribution, and that we should do so without weakening the economies or societies of fragile countries because that would be irresponsible. Yes, the number of work permits that we have issued has, for example, doubled since 1998. I cannot give a forecast as to how many there will be in the future; that will depend on the demand that is made from employers in the United Kingdom. However, I would expect the number to continue to rise—so it should, if there are needs that we cannot source locally.
In conclusion, I warmly thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate. It has given us a good opportunity to focus some initial consideration at a wider level on the forces that are at work, before we get into the important detail of scrutinising the Government's Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    The Committee met at half—past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I remind Members of the Committee this Committee operates exactly as it would on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord who is speaking does so standing and there are no Divisions. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the noble Lord who is speaking will quickly end that speech and we will adjourn for 10 minutes. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal wishes to say something.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): If I might mention just two or three matters of housekeeping. First, I would like to thank the House authorities for providing a much more suitable Room; they acted very quickly. Secondly, the intention is—I have had particular request from colleagues— to finish Part 4 today but to go no further and to deal with Part 5 tomorrow, if that is acceptable. Several Members of the Committee wanted to know the suggested programme. Thirdly, it is possible tomorrow that photographers may be allowed into this Room for the purposes of taking photographs for the annual report. All those persons who are desperate for further publicity should come appropriately attired.
    Clause 52 [Aims of youth justice system]:
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 180:
    Page 30, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
    "( ) The principal aim of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland is to prevent offending by children and to promote the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.
    ( ) Every child in contact with the law shall be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, reinforcing the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others."
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 181.
    The establishment of a set of aims for the youth justice system is welcome. There has been a need for a clear set of guiding principles to inform all those working with children who are at risk of offending.
    CWH 114
    These two amendments seek to amend the aim and purpose of this part. I have read the debate in the Commons on this matter—there was some discussion about the phrase "preventing offending". Clause 52(1) states:
    "The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children".
    If that were the main feature, the heading of Part 4 should be "Youth offending system" rather than "Youth justice". The amendments, if agreed to, would make this part more clearly child-centred. The wording of the amendments fits with international standards. As a start in relation to a very important and much appreciated part of the Bill, that would assist in setting out better the aim and purpose of the provisions. I beg to move.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Like many earlier amendments, Amendment No. 180 and later amendments would reverse the whole thrust of the Bill by shifting the balance to protecting the offender rather than the victim. While I have many reservations about other parts of the Bill, I have no quarrel with Clause 52(1) as it stands A reversal of that theme would—to use an oft-repeated phrase in our debates—send the wrong signal. That is the form of words which was addressed to me several years ago during debates on the Northern Ireland Act. I was condemned for favouring adherence to the known path which bitter experience has proved to have delivered a much more stable structure in governance of Northern Ireland.
    Whatever the scope and range of reparation orders, community responsibility orders arid youth conference orders envisaged in Clauses 56 and 57, I am gravely concerned that the beneficiaries of the former could include the "community at large" phrase, given the depth of penetration of terrorist organisations into many of our communities. What guarantees can be given by the Government to ensure that such orders will not be used to "contract out" court-imposed penalties to those who exercise community control in a very undesirable way; that is, by operating on the fringes of the law and sometimes well beyond the fringes?
    In the case of both orders, supervision is to be undertaken by what is termed a "responsible officer", who can be,
    "such a person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    However, it could be that that person might fall into one of the three categories, although only two of them would be in any way acceptable.
    In summary, my main concern is that no person so designated should have any hint of criminality associated with him or her. Those currently banned and barred from the office of constable should be similarly barred from this office. I believe that that would be a move in the desirable direction.
    Lord Hylton: I am in general sympathy with what these amendments are trying to achieve. First, however, they would be better if they repeated the words in the text of the Bill concerning the protection of the public.
    CWH 115 Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    CWH 115
    Secondly, the movers might consider incorporating words to the effect that, "the welfare of the child shall be paramount, perhaps subject to the interests of justice". We all know that the welfare of the child being paramount is a standard phrase in all legislation concerning children.
    Thirdly, the second paragraph of Amendment No. 180 concerns:
    "Every child in contact with the law".
    We all know that that is a common shorthand phrase for being suspected of having committed a crime, or at least of antisocial behaviour. However, I am not sure it is a phrase that ought to appear on the face of a Bill. It might be preferable for that paragraph to refer to the youth justice system, such as, "Every child in contact with the youth justice system", or it might say, "suspected of crime or antisocial behaviour". With those reservations, I wish to support the amendments.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may ask for clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. For many years, I have listened to his contributions and I know that he is a great supporter of children in the House. However, although the noble Lord said that the interests of the child must be paramount in all legislation dealing with children, is that also the case when children are criminals?
    Lord Hylton: That is precisely why I said "subject to the interests of justice", which must take priority in any court or criminal proceedings.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not disagree with the themes articulated by the noble Lord who moved the amendment and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Without discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, perhaps I may deal with his specific concerns when we consider the particular amendments which have been tabled.
    In terms of approach, I do not believe that there is any difference between us. I would suggest that the sentiments for which noble Lords have contended are adequately reflected in the clause as drafted. Noble Lords have mentioned the reintegration of the child and the child's best interests, but those, in the belief of many of us, are addressed properly through preventing offending and re-offending in the first place.
    On the question of the paramountcy of the interests of the child, the noble Baroness is right. That concept is found in the Children Act, which deals with the civil aspects of the child's welfare. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, conceded, the child's interests can never, in a sense, be paramount, if paramount means supreme. Plainly, the interests of the public, the victim and the system of justice are powerful contenders for that supremacy. I appreciate that the noble Lord was not claiming it as an absolute supremacy. I suggest that we are saying exactly the same thing and that it is sufficiently and appropriately accommodated in the present wording.
    CWH 116
    Amendment No. 181 would introduce some confusion. If the amendment were made, the Bill would state that primary consideration should be given to the best interests of the child, and, at the same time, that the principal aim of the system was the protection of the public by preventing offending and re-offending. Those do not go happily together.
    The tension is more real than apparent. The clause replicates the language of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. In the context of the use of welfare and best interest, there is no material difference. If we have regard to the welfare of the child—a principle well known in law and practice—as set out in the aims, shall we not, to all intents and purposes, have regard to the child's best interests?
    I welcome the debate, but the Bill adequately caters for the concerns expressed.
    Lord Glentoran: I do not wish to add much. I tend not to support the amendment for a couple of reasons, which have been enunciated already by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal in his response.
    First, the words "child" and "children" can, in the context of this Bill, be misleading. The Bill accounts for all those aged up to 17 years 11 months and 30 days. We have already had many Bills in this House referring to the age of consent for different things, for heterosexual sex, homosexual sex and so on. For those, the age has been reduced to 16, which means, in effect, 15 and perhaps even 14. Although the Bill refers to "children", we are, for much of the time, talking about young adults, not children. My children would not have been happy to have been referred to as children—other than with a great deal of affection—once they had reached the ages of 17 or 18. I suspect that many other Members of the Committee have the same experience. We should bear that in mind throughout the part of the Bill dealing with youth justice. I shall return to that point at different stages.
    The second point was raised with me in discussion by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden yesterday. It is vital that, in the opening paragraphs of a part of the Bill that deals with something new—the youth criminal justice scheme is new—there is absolute clarity for the judges who will have to make decisions on sentencing. It is likely that they will wish to refer to the aims of the system, set out in this part of the Bill. It is important that the Government take that on board. The amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, and the other Liberal Democrats do not help that part of it. Overall, therefore, I would tend to stay with the status quo.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the comments that have been made. I am certainly not averse to some changes. Whether the important words "protect the public" should be so paramount at this point is a question on which we can reflect. We will think on those things. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

    CWH 117
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 182:
    Page 30, line 41, at end insert—
    "(3A) All persons and bodies exercising functions in relation to the youth justice system shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
    (3B) For the purpose of subsection (3A) the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of natural law."
    The noble Lord said: I would describe Amendment No. 182 as the, "assurance to child and child participation amendment". We are still considering the aim and purpose of this. Putting in place certain important principles in regard to the aim and purpose is the right thing to do. Therefore this amendment suggests that two new subsections (3A) and (3B) should be inserted to make it very clear that the youth justice system is child-centred. The person involved should be given assurances, as well as the opportunity to express his or her views. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lord that there is an absolute need for everyone, not only the child, to have the right to express their views and to have them heard. To an extent, perhaps we have the balance wrong at the moment. Very often it is the victim of crime who seems to go unheard. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that he said this is an aims and purpose clause and he is seeking to introduce process here. While it is not fundamental, perhaps it is an inappropriate place to include the amendment.
    We shall be introducing youth conferencing arrangements which, for the first time, will provide an inclusive process in which all those affected by crime can play an active, full and proportionate part in its resolution. The rights referred to in this amendment are fully safeguarded in the Bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that no further amendment is needed here and, indeed, there is a concentration in this amendment on the rights of the child—that is, the alleged offender—while being silent on the rights of anyone else.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
    Clause 52 agreed to
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 184:
    Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
    "PARTICIPATION AND UNDERSTANDING

    (1) Before making any order in respect of a child, the court shall explain to the child the nature of the proceedings and where the child is charged with an offence the nature of the charge.

    (2) The explanation shall be given in simple language suitable to the child's age and understanding."

    The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Committee will give a tremendous welcome to the idea that a child should have the proceedings explained to them, and that the explanation should be made in simple language. It seems to me that clarity and the use of simple language is essential when talking to a child, whether that child is a small child or a more elderly child, as discussed earlier. It is important that the child understands the proceedings and that the explanation is given in simple language. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. It seems very sensible and would be a valuable addition to the Bill. I make that point despite not having attended a children's court or the preliminaries to children's court or youth court. Clear explanation of the procedures is absolutely vital to the whole process of reintegrating young offenders into society. The starting point, after being arrested and charged and all that goes with that, must be that they understand the whole process of the justice system in which they are, unfortunately, involved.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I could offer a triple reassurance—unless the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wants to continue.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am afraid that the speed of events beat me. I apologise for that. There is a clause of this nature in the Bill. The important thing is that it be brought forward so that it covers all orders, not just the reparation order, where it currently appears. That was the major reason for tabling the amendment. The words are there, but only in respect of reparation orders, not in respect of community responsibility orders and custody care orders. I should have said that earlier.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was going to draw the Committee's attention to paragraph (5) on page 32, which, as the noble Lord rightly says, deals with reparation orders. Perhaps it is helpful if I remind your Lordships that in June 2000, the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction in Northern Ireland, which is similar to that in England and Wales, requiring that the Crown Court should take steps to ensure that a defendant understands court procedures and should conduct proceedings in a way commensurate with the ability of the defendants to understand and concentrate. In addition, as recommended by the criminal justice review, the Northern Ireland Court Service is bringing forward guidelines aimed at allowing young people better to understand and be engaged in youth court proceedings.

    CWH 119
    The matters that the noble Lord has properly referred to are being dealt with in those different ways. If he requires further reassurance before the Report, I am happy to meet him with officials to discuss these matters to see whether we can cure his concerns.
    Perhaps I can go a stage further. The provisions for community responsibility orders are dealt with in new Article 36F(5) inserted by Clause 54, on page 35, and those for youth conference orders are dealt with in new Article 36K(2) inserted by Clause 59, on page 54. I sympathise with the noble Lord. The provisions are to be found, but one has to look around a little.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful for that contribution. I may well take up the Minister's offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 53 [Reparation orders]:
    [Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 not moved.]
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 187:
    Page 31, line 25, at end insert—
    "( ) a person professionally responsible for the child's education where the child is in receipt of education;"
    The noble Lord said: This series of clauses brings into the script education and those involved in education, be they teachers or others. The reason for moving this series of amendments is to enhance the position of education within the Bill.
    Teachers and others connected with education may well know more about the child than those new people who enter the child's life subsequent to wrongdoing. The important feature of all the amendments is to bring education and those concerned with it into some of the decisions that will affect the lives of these young people.
    Education is a not a not-particularly-optional add-on for young people. It is a core activity for them. Often, the people involved in education have the most knowledge of that child, apart from the parents. Although probation officers and social workers and so forth ultimately become involved in the lives of these children, the people who were involved earliest and who have an in-depth knowledge and a link with the real world in which the children lived before they got into bother can perhaps help to get them back to that world instead of the world of trouble.
    It also occurs to me that this is part of joined-up government and joined-up life. The people involved in education have an important role in youth justice. This series of amendments highlights people involved in education—likely to be teachers—who can assist in finding the right way forward for these young people. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I understand what the noble Lord is attempting with the amendment. Nevertheless, as an old village schoolmaster, I oppose the idea. New Article 36A(4)specifies what the court "must obtain" before making a reparation order. The
    CWH 120
    amendment would put a legal obligation on schoolteachers to become involved whenever a child offended and was brought before the courts.
    In my experience, if there are extenuating circumstances in a case, schoolteachers will make a submission, where advisable, on behalf of the child. However, to make that obligatory by legislation would put an onus on a professional person who is not initially responsible for dealing with a child who becomes involved in criminal activity.
    A probation officer, whose job is to be directly involved, will be appointed, as will a social worker. However, it would be unwise and unfair to place such an obligation on members of the teaching profession.
    Lord Hylton: It is possible that the amendments may be technically defective or may not come in exactly the right place in the Bill. Nevertheless, I support the general thrust of them. We all know, whether in England or in Northern Ireland, that the time when most young people get involved in crime and antisocial behaviour is when they are at risk of suspension from school or have been suspended or totally excluded.
    I have personal knowledge of a scheme still functioning in Belfast, called Pathways. Set up as a joint venture between the Education and Library Board and a voluntary organisation, it is providing alternative forms of education for children who are found to be at risk of getting into trouble. It would be helpful if the Bill could incorporate some reference at least to educational input.
    Viscount Brookeborough: On the face of it, I am reasonably in favour of these amendments, but, bowing to the greater knowledge of our village schoolmaster, I accept that it would be difficult to put the obligation on to teachers. Can the Minister reassure us that, if children are involved with the courts, the school is always given an opportunity to put forward its point of view.
    Almost inevitably it is the children who are difficult at school who are more prone to this kind of difficulty. I have worked with a hospital trust which undertook child psychiatry. There is a problem with children with learning difficulties who are left behind at school. A large proportion of the children—somewhere around 50 per cent—who are acknowledged to have learning difficulties are not catered for in special schools or given assistance from special people because the funding simply is not there. That applies throughout the United Kingdom.
    As a result, these children are, first, more prone to homelessness later on; secondly, they are more prone to commit youth crime. Where they are attending a place of education or a child psychiatric unit where experts are helping them, I should like to be assured that, even if it is not specified in the Bill, in every such case the school or the professionals involved will be asked for their opinion.
    4 p.m.
    Lord Kilclooney: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I too am greatly influenced by the words of wisdom from a very old former teacher. To be serious, one of the major complaints in education from the teaching profession at the moment is the increasing burden of administration in schools: form filling and so forth. Here, yet again, we are going to put a further burden on the teaching profession. That will certainly mean less time for teaching the children.
    The second point I should like to make is this. If such a proposal is going to be made, then surely the teaching trade unions would have been approached and we would have had word of their opinion?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The former village school teacher—not the old village school teacher—is absolutely right. I can say that, given that my late father was a village school teacher. What the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, seems to be indicating is that one does not need to be overly prescriptive, a point made the other day by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. One needs to allow a certain amount of discretion and judgment. In very many cases it may well be necessary to contact the school and the school teacher, but it does not need to be made an absolute obligation in the Bill.
    The education of the young person is of course important and we want to avoid any conflict between educational interests and the general requirements of the order. It is neither necessary nor suitable to make provision for a person professionally responsible for the child's education to be specifically defined, for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney.
    The Secretary of State will have the power to designate persons to perform the relevant function in circumstances where it makes sense to do so. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that one would expect the expertise of social services or the probation board to be the most suitable for this type of work. In exercising their professional judgment, where appropriate, they would want to be in touch with the school teacher or the school.
    I accept that the factors set out in Amendment No. 188 are typical of the factors that need to be taken into account. Again, however, one would expect those considerations and others—for instance, the age and maturity of the relevant child—to inform the court's decision on the requirements appropriate to each case. We ought to leave it to the courts and the professionals who prepare the reports to reach sensible judgments.
    On amendment No. 189, I repeat, details of the child's education provision are very important and should be reflected in the court report. That is not the only aspect, however. There may be considerations of religion or work which also need to be taken into account. One would not want to introduce a prescriptive ranking of the importance of those various considerations. The Bill already provides that a reparation must, as far as is practicable, avoid
    CWH 122
    conflict with attendance at school or work or with the offender's religious beliefs. For myself, I am con tent that report writers and the courts will reflect on all the relevant factors when determining the appropriate requirements.
    Amendment No. 193 would add to the categories of persons who can be nominated as responsible officers. As the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney, said, in many circumstances this would be an extremely unwelcome obligation placed on teachers and education professionals.
    In particular, let us look at the illustration of a teacher at work, as I once was myself. It would be quite wrong for someone who has responsibility for a child's education to be put in a position where they might be called on to enforce the court order—for instance, if breach proceedings were necessary. That would be unsuitable and, in my 'view, inconsistent with a teacher's professional ethics.
    The purpose of the provision at which Amendment No. 194 is directed is simply to transfer the authority for a reparation order from the court that imposed it to the court in the petty sessional division in which the child lives, if that is different.
    On Amendment No. 199, copies of a community responsibility order have to be given immediately to the child subject to the order, the parent or guardian and the supervising responsible officer. I cannot see the purpose of insisting that the teacher of a child must also receive a copy of the order. It is difficult to understand what use they might make of it.
    Amendments Nos. 215, 221, 225 and 228 relate to a child still in education. Amendment No. 215 would require the attendance at the conference of an education professional in all cases if the child is still in education. I echo again the point of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. That would mean that the conference could not go on without the teacher being present. The teaching professional could make an invaluable contribution to the conference, but it is too rigid to say that the conference cannot go ahead without the teacher being there. I put in brackets that most teachers of my acquaintance do not teach just one child. What is to happen to all the other children under the teacher's care in a particular class? The amendments are not workable. It is much better to allow a certain amount of informed discretion rather than being too prescriptive.
    In some circumstances, it might be in the interests of the child if the school were not informed of the order. For instance, if a child receiving education commits a petty offence on a Saturday, not on a school day, an apology and reparation to the shop owner in a shoplifting case, a restriction on being in town on a Saturday or a requirement to participate in a sporting activity might well be sufficient. In other circumstances, the school ought to be involved. These are further illustrations of an over-prescriptive approach.

    CWH 123
    The Bill already provides that the co-ordinator may allow the attendance of anyone whose participation would be of value. Under Clause 52—the aims clause— co-ordinators are already required, as we have seen today, to have regard to the welfare of a child being conferenced with a view, in particular, to furthering educational development. Amendment No. 221 would require the conference plan to contain details for provision of the child's education. For the reasons I gave a moment or two ago, that is unduly prescriptive.
    Amendment No. 225 would require that, when the director is informed of the extent to which the child has complied with the youth conference plan, he also receives a report on the child's attendance and performance at school. New Article 10D provides that a report must go to the director at the end of the period specified in the youth conference plan, informing him of the extent to which the child has complied with the plan. That information will enable him to decide whether he ought to instigate proceedings in respect of the child.
    On the other hand, if a conference plan stipulates that a child attends school or undertakes certain courses—perhaps the particular courses to which the noble Viscount referred—or even that he works to improve his grades in certain subjects, the director must be informed of the extent to which these requirements are being complied with. However, if the conference plan does not make any such requirements, the decision whether to prosecute should not be based on any such report.
    Amendment No. 228, which is the last in this quite lengthy grouping, would require a copy of the youth conference order to be given to a professional responsible for the child's education in all cases in which the child is still in receipt of education. Where the plan includes requirements relating to a child's attendance or performance at school, it will be necessary for the school to know that, to ensure that compliance is monitored. However, where the plan does not include any such requirement, I cannot agree that the school should, as a matter of course, be informed about the order.
    I have spent a little time on this group because it is important—it deals with various aspects. I return to the theme with which I began—that one does not need to burden teachers and schools unnecessarily, but one should allow the discretion to involve them where appropriate.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and to the teaching fraternity. There are circumstances where the caring teacher will very much want to know what is happening to the child that has been part of the flock. We will think about these matters but I am not clear where in the Bill there is an acknowledgement in certain circumstances of the linkage between education and the Bill. There should be some acknowledgement that, in some circumstances, that linkage could be incredibly important. I would like to
    CWH 124
    think that that was possible. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to think about that again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Park of Monmouthmoved Amendment No. 187A:
    Page 31, leave out line 27.
    The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 196A, 209A, 209B and 217A.
    The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has said some of what I want to say on the amendment, but I shall say it just the same. My concern is—I am sorry to be prescriptive—about the provision in sub-paragraph (b), which refers to,
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I believe that the provision relating to that other person, who will have a significant role in relation to an offender who is subject to a community responsibility order, a reparation order or a custody care order, is too broad. Under the Bill, that designated person could be required to provide a written report on the offender or to supervise the offender and would presumably be one of the three adults required to be in regular contact with the offender.
    My concerns are as follows. The Bill is rightly designed to involve the community in the whole process of dealing with juvenile delinquency. However, in the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, where the community is dominated by the paramilitaries, the Secretary of State and, still more, his successors—the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—might have a very strong and entirely reasonable political wish to advance the peace process by associating paramilitaries with the administration of law and order and the affairs of the community. That would be done on the principle of poachers turning gamekeepers.
    Sinn Fein/IRA and the UVF, for instance, have not been brought up in that tradition. However, that will not prevent Sinn Fein/IRA from using that as an argument for "rehabilitating" violent men and,
    "involving them in the peace process".
    What will happen to the community—the real, general community? The object of the paramilitaries and the political parties behind them is to establish by every means open to them that they, and not the police, control every aspect of the life of the community.
    They have not been slow to present themselves, for instance, as those who are policing drug-takers and expelling families—exiling them to the mainland—on the grounds of involvement with crime of some sort. They are the law and people do not dare to apply to the police. The Government are beginning to recognise that. I therefore strongly urge the noble and learned Lord to reconsider the sweeping and necessarily undefined power of nomination and to define the third post as being open to, for instance, any candidate with recognised and current professional qualifications and experience in working with children. There will be

    CWH 125
    teachers, I am sorry to say—I support the Liberal Democrats in that regard—doctors and other professionals who could still fill the bill.
    It is extremely important that a system that is designed to protect the public by preventing offending by children should not be hijacked by the Mafia dons of the IRA and the UVF, or discredited by association in the eyes of ordinary men and women with such people. As we shall see later in the Bill, when we come to the community safety strategy, it could give them yet more power to influence and dominate the lives of citizens. It would be an irony indeed if the very men who terrorise the young, train them to make firebombs and instil hatred in them were given the status to make decisions as the Secretary of State's nominee or that of the First or Deputy First Minister.
    I realise that that is prescriptive but I beg that some kind of safeguard should be placed in the clause to ensure that what I have suggested could not happen. I beg to move.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in what she has cautioned. I hope that all Members of the Committee have taken note of the most appropriate warning at this particular stage. Professionally trained probation officers are involved in cases in which children are involved in crime and professionally trained social workers are also involved. However, there is another stratum in our society—its members are loosely known as "welfare workers". Some might say that they are professionally trained, mostly in Long Kesh or Maghaberry. I have to admit that some of those people come out, having spent a period in prison, and want to contribute something back to society. Many of them still remain part of paramilitary organisations and are the "acceptable face"—I emphasise the inverted commas—of those paramilitary organisations.
    None of us can believe that the Secretary of State will be the person who has his finger on the pulse and who will decide whether this other person should be designated to have a part to play. That would be delegated through the system, so that one merely has to establish a precedent by which those "welfare workers"—again, I emphasise the inverted commas—are involved in a case. Their power and influence may be so great as to intimidate—to overwhelm—the influence of the social worker: the professionally qualified person who really does have the child's interest at heart.
    There are many examples. I have been involved in trying to understand what is meant by the term "restorative justice" in Northern Ireland. It is a very fine term and what is intended could no doubt be worth while. However, in relation to the outworkings of that and in a society such as ours—a society that will have to endure many more years of transition until we become normal in general terms—we cannot allow anything to infiltrate the justice system. I respectfully caution the Minister to take on board the amendment
    CWH 126
    so as to ensure that we do not undermine the opportunity for children who commit crimes to be properly absorbed back into society. Conversely, a situation could be created where they are more likely to be absorbed into and brought under the influence of paramilitary organisations.
    Lord Laird: I too support the amendment. Two Members of the Committee have explained the reasons behind it. In my view, the thrust of Paragraph 4 is extremely good, with one or two amendments. I like the concept. I have talked with other noble Lords to learn how this kind of justice operates in the London area and I am quite satisfied with it. However, there is one major proviso: we must not allow this to become entangled in the web of paramilitarism referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. We must keep it away from the troubles of Northern Ireland and from the difficulties of the paramilitaries and their concept of justice.
    The problem is that, without the amendment, the provision will let in a little chink of light from the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the experience of some of the actions of certain Secretaries of State has revealed that they were not as pure as they could have been. I say that although I am acutely aware that one or two former Secretaries of State are serving on this Committee. Obviously I do not suggest in any way that they were involved in difficult decisions.
    When I think of some of the political decisions that have been taken recently, we cannot be sure that things are what they are and, conversely, things are not what they are not. I am keen to support the amendment.
    Lord Hylton: I have a high regard for the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. Nevertheless, as I listened to her words it seemed that she was slightly overstating her argument. She appeared to imply that the whole of Northern Ireland is totally dominated by paramilitaries. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will know of many areas that are not so dominated.
    The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked what community restorative justice might be understood to mean. If it is of any help to the noble Lord, I should like to give my version. Community restorative justice is a process that puts the victim, as far as possible, back into the position in which he or she was before the offence took place. Furthermore, if the process is successful, it does away with the enmity and resentment that are likely to have arisen between the offender and the victim.
    The concept and the practice of community restorative practice have now been tested in many countries around the world, including here in England. In so far as the reparation orders prescribed in the Bill will work, they are to be supplemented by local community restorative justice. That will tend to reduce the number and severity of interventions by paramilitary groups, many of whom I know to be very

    CWH 127
    reluctant to carry out summary justice. However, they have been pressurised into doing so by the numerous complaints from neighbours and local residents.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may make two points in response to the noble Lord? First, a great deal of the crime that we are considering is likely to be urban; the experience of Belfast is not unrelated to the issue. Of course I accept that the situation is not the same all over Northern Ireland and I am glad that it is not. However, it obtains in enough of Northern Ireland to be a very serious problem. My other point is that I find it extraordinarily difficult to feel sympathy for these unfortunate, delicate paramilitaries, who feel obliged to administer summary justice when we have a perfectly good police force which they refuse to allow to administer that justice.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendments and would like first to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. He is right that Northern Ireland is not dominated by paramilitaries and that the system has been tested throughout the world. It is my understanding that wherever it has been tested, it has been done within the legal and justice system of that jurisdiction. Paragraph 9.15 of the criminal justice review, on page 193, refers to schemes within the criminal justice process, quoting one in Mountpottinger where the police were involved and another in Ballymena. It then goes on to mention schemes outside the criminal justice process, without passing judgment on them. The Bill talks about those criminal justice schemes being within the justice and legal system.
    However, on the unofficial restorative justice schemes, the review says:
    "Those running the schemes in Loyalist areas have generally made efforts to involve the police and operate in a way that is (sometimes loosely) complementary to the normal criminal process. Those in Republican areas have no contact with the police, although they have developed links with other statutory agencies, and have no links with the formal criminal justice process".
    I am against both those systems, regardless of whether the loyalist ones talk to the police. They are both standing out on their own and coming to their own conclusions without the proper people necessarily being present.
    As I understand it, restorative justice cannot occur unless the perpetrator pleads guilty. After that, neither of these systems can possibly have any link to the police without there being consequences further down the line. If, as we hope, restorative justice is to try to turn people away from crime and to administer some sort of rebuke or, when it works, to allow the courts to be more lenient, we cannot have youths or young people being punished twice—first by the paramilitaries or whatever. There can be only one reason for these two systems that have appeared outside the criminal justice process: they do not want the criminal justice system involved. Therefore, most
    CWH 128
    people in Northern Ireland—by which I mean the law-abiding people—will see it as justice within a community being run by those who wish to run their communities by fear and disorder and terrorist means.
    Lord Glentoran: I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend, Lady Park. Earlier in the Committee I made the point that as we go through the Bill we must ensure that this criminal justice system, and in particular the youth criminal justice part, is maintained and clearly seen to be whiter than white. That means no sign, touch or feel of contamination. By contamination, I mean that people who have been exposed at some time in their lives as serious criminals and the like should not be allowed to be involved.
    Amendment No. 187A would delete new Article 36A(4)(c). Paragraph (4) begins:
    "Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report by—

    (a) a probation officer;

    (b) a social worker of the appropriate authority;".

    That is a carefully thought-out provision, specifying proper people who ought to be expected to produce such a report. However, the thinking then suddenly stops with sub-Paragraph (c), which merely says anybody else whom the Secretary of State might designate. That is not necessary because if the court requires to hear from anyone else, then the court will be aware of that. It will do the thinking and I am almost certain that—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong—they will have the power to request that particular body to give them a report. Why then offer this unnecessary, open-ended and—I suggest with all due respect—ill thought-out statement?
    Amendment No. 193A addresses paragraph (4) of Article 36D on page 33. Here we have a similar situation where a "responsible officer" in relation to an offender subject to a reparation order means one of the following as specified in the order. Again, it is thought out: the probation officer or the social worker of the appropriate authority. Then suddenly the thinking stops once more. Anyone else the Secretary of State, the First Minister or Deputy First Minister might think of may be appointed. No prescription of any kind has been made. Why is the Bill prescriptive up to a certain point and then suddenly not in any way prescriptive?
    When we come to Clause 55 on page 41, we are considering the supervision of young people under custody care orders on probation. That must be a critical time in a young person's life; that is, coming through the supervision of a custody care order and the probation period. Again, the Bill specifies that the young person shall be under the supervision of a probation officer—a properly trained, accredited person. However, once more we encounter the strange phrase, "or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate"; or who may be designated by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister. What would they know about it? They should not know anything about

    CWH 129
    it; they are miles removed. I suggest that my noble friend's amendments should be given careful attention by the Government.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I do not have a new point to make. I seek only to add a little inadequate support to what has been said by my noble friend Lady Park and by those who have spoken in support of her. In particular, what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Glentoran draws attention to the point which ought to be at the heart of this debate. Nobody could possibly claim that the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill are other than carefully thought out. I am quite certain that they have been the subject of a great deal of consultation. Indeed, we know that to be the case. We see set out specifically the two persons who are to be eligible and amenable to making a report if the court wants it.
    That is not quite right. I am looking at page 31, line 20,
    "Any person so specified"—
    in the case of reparation orders—
    "must be a person identified by the court as—

    (a) a victim of the offence; or

    (b) a person otherwise affected by it.

    (4) Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain"—
    this is the point that I wish to emphasise—
    "and consider a report written by—

    (a) a probation officer;

    (b) a social worker of the appropriate authority; or"—

    here are the words that my noble friend Lady Park wants to delete, as do I—
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I hope that, in his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, will deal with two points. Who might be the categories of person the Secretary of State might be minded to designate? Could they be persons who have not as yet occurred to those responsible for drafting the Bill as being worthy of inclusion in this short list? The obvious people, as my noble friend Lord Glentoran has already pointed out, are the probation officer and the social worker with the appropriate authority. From whom else might the court need to see a report once the third category of person had been designated?
    I also hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind the realism of what my noble friend Lady Park said about the practice of entryism by the paramilitaries on both sides. I am sure it is right that the Secretary of State will be acting upon advice in designating people. It is not unrealistic to suppose that, for reasons that genuinely seem good to a future Secretary of State—or even to the current Secretary of State—somebody will be brought in with very undesirable objectives. That does happen and I hope the Government will take seriously my noble friend's warning.
    CWH 130
    I do not want to be wholly destructive—I thought that it might be possible to offer an alternative. Instead of a "must" there should be a "may" in respect of a third category. My alternative provision would state,
    "may obtain and consider a report from such other person as in furtherance of the principal aims"—
    or the furtherance of Clause 52—"they"—that is, the court—"may select". That might be a compromise way forward.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendments have a common purpose. I will follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, by restricting my comments, by way of illustration, as he did, to page 31. Clause 53(4) states:
    "Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report by … probation officer; … a social worker of the appropriate authority; or … such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I think that the noble and learned Lord crystallised the questions in the minds of other Members of the Committee by inviting me to say what the thinking of the Government was about who might be in that third category of designation. I will happily reply. There are excellent bodies in the voluntary sector and partly in the statutory and voluntary sectors, which I shall enumerate, which might well be able to offer extremely valuable assistance—to take the example the noble and learned Lord—in terms of providing a written report.
    I refer, for example, to NIACRO and the Northern Ireland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with which I had the privilege of working very closely when I was a trustee of the NSPCC. Members of the Committee will know that although the NSPCC is a charitable and voluntary organisation, it enters into statutory partnerships for certain purposes with government agencies. A wide range of projects is offered across Northern Ireland under the aegis of the Juvenile Justice Board. I hope that those illustrations answer the noble and learned Lord's question. I am glad that we are having this discussion and that my response indicates the Government's thinking.
    The court already has discretion about who it may ask for a report. The obligation is to obtain a report. There is no obligation to obtain a report from a probation officer—the obligation is simply to have a written report. Therefore, we hope that the explanation that I have given will satisfy Members of the Committee, although I fear that it may not. We are going to have a focused discussion in this regard later this afternoon—we shall later discuss amendments about disqualifications from certain positions. That will involve specific examples of what the noble Baroness referred to in her general introduction. I hope to assure Members of the Committee that only those who have the right skills and the appropriate contributions of the sorts I have mentioned will be designated for this important task.

    CWH 131
    I turn to Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B. These provisions replicate the supervision arrangements for juvenile justice centre orders on which custody care orders are based. We would expect a probation officer to undertake supervision in most cases—I stress those three words—but we should maintain flexibility particularly—I also stress that—in relation to younger children.
    On Amendment No. 217A, we want the flexibility to provide appropriate supervision arrangements. We do not intend to remove the general category in relation to custody care orders or to amend the 1998 order in relation to juvenile justice centre orders. I therefore hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the definition should remain as drafted.
    I do not overlook the concerns that have been ventilated—they are real and legitimate. I hope that I have at least been able to answer the noble and learned Lord's questions.
    Lord Glentoran: For clarification, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there are still parts of Northern Ireland in which the probation officer system cannot work? Does he understand that the amendments must relate to a fear of what substitution might he allowed in that regard?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand what the noble Lord says—he said it with his customary moderation and patience. My counter to that argument is that, if one desires a certain degree of flexibility—if the probation officer is not appropriate or if the social worker is not appropriate, or if neither is available—the court has the opportunity to obtain a written report from the organisations to which I referred. I do not agree that probation officers are not able to carry out their work, but that may be a matter of dispute. I cannot pretend that my knowledge is greater on the ground than that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble and learned Lord said that it is open to the court to call for reports from any of the several organisations that he mentioned. Why, therefore, can that not be the normal rule? Why does the Secretary of State have to intervene from on high in the very basic detail of a very complex system?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I mis-expressed myself or the noble Baroness uncharacteristically misunderstood me. Paragraph (4) states:
    "Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report".
    That is, the obligation in all cases, prior to making the order, is to obtain and consider the written report. The categories of persons from whom that written report can come are,
    "a probation officer … a social worker … or … such other person as the Secretary of State my designate".
    CWH 132
    My point was that a written report has to be obtained and that report has to be considered; the categories would include the opportunity for the Secretary of State to designate persons, as is set out in sub-paragraph (c).
    Lord Tebbit: I am a little uncertain about the meaning of the provision. Paragraph (4), to which the noble and learned Lord referred, says the court must,
    "obtain and consider a … report by … such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    Is that a power for the Secretary of State to designate other persons in general in a way in which courts may take into account—I see that there are some nods from Members of the Committee—or does it mean that the Secretary of State thought, in relation to a particular case, that there should be a report from another person?
    Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord accept that a problem arises because those people are not designated in the Bill, for understandable reasons? We do not know who they will be, although the noble and learned Lord gave some very good and reasonable examples. On the other hand, he refuses at every stage to accept a bar in relation to the appointment of people who are tainted with terrorism. If he could allow us to include a barrier against the appointment of tainted persons, that would ease our minds.
    [The Sitting was suspendedfor a Division in the House from 4.44 to 4.54 p.m.]
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful for the illustration given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and I quite see that those are entirely respectable organisations with very good records which a court might usefully consider. However, under paragraph (4), the court must obtain and consider "a written report"—only one—which may be by a probation officer, a social worker of the appropriate authority or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate. A great many of us would be more at ease with this if there were an obligation to obtain and consider a report from either a probation officer or a social worker and then an option to obtain a further report from,
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I should like a requirement to obtain and consider a report from either a probation officer or a social worker. If the Secretary of State is to be able to designate somebody else, let that be an add-on.
    Lord Hylton: Very briefly, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I can imagine a case coming up of perhaps a first offender who is not already known to a probation officer or a social worker but who may be known to a third party and the court will know that that third party exists. Therefore, I would like it to be within the discretion of the court to get the report or other information that it needs from the third person.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall deal with the questions that were put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He is quite right; there was vigorous nodding in assent to his first proposition—it is the former not the latter.
    Bodies rather than individuals will be designated under the provision for,
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    In other words, "person" is used in the sense of a corporate person—an organisation such as NISPCC or NIACRO.
    The noble Lord also asked whether we could avoid tainted individuals. We have to trust these organisations to employ appropriate staff. The same applies to social services, probation officers and any local authority. I hope that that is of assistance.
    Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Could it be made clear on the face of the Bill that "persons" is being used in that sense of a corporate body?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: May I give some consideration to that? I do not want to accept a drafting amendment that might have adverse consequences on a complicated, well thought-out Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy and I undertake to put thought to the issue with officials before we come back on Report. If I am able to write to the noble Lord and to all Members of the Committee in advance, I shall do so.
    Viscount Brookeborough: That still does not completely clear up the Secretary of State side. If, as the noble and learned Lord says, the court might wish to bring in someone else, why can we not simply specify such a person as the court may deem suitable for the case? I do not understand the problem. The noble and learned Lord has just said that they will be the people who do it, so why do we not say so?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is a misunderstanding here. Any court at any time can, of its own volition, call for a report from anyone. The obligation here is that they must not make the reparation order without the consideration of a written report from one of these three designated categories. However, that does not prevent any court at any time—certainly when dealing with children and young persons—from applying of its own volition for a report. That does not need to be set out in the Bill; it is a commonplace of the administration of criminal justice, in my experience.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, wondered whether we might substitute the word "and" for "or". That would restrict flexibility. We want the court to have the opportunity to come to its judicial conclusion as to which body the written report should come from—the probation officer, the social worker or one of the designated categories.
    That should deal with the questions that have been put to me.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he has made one dangerous presumption, which is that, in the organisations or the types of organisation that lie has listed, there will not be people who will be undesirable for the purpose of making an assessment in the case of a child involved in a criminal act. At every level of society in Northern Ireland—the noble and learned Lord will recognise this—there is pressure from the Northern Ireland Office to bring in those who have, in their former lives, been terrorists, been prisoners and been involved in all sorts of terrorism and criminality.
    There may be good reason for that; I have mixed feelings. I believe that every dog should have his day and am happy, if there is genuine remorse, to see people absorbed back into society. However, it is too early to give them this type of responsibility. There may be people who have got through the net but who are not yet qualified, whether that is because of a lack of remorse, because they are of doubtful use to society or because they are not fully committed to a lawful society. It is too early to bring them in to make judgments, as could happen here. I made the point earlier, and I make it again: the Secretary of State has that responsibility, but it will be a delegated responsibility, and he will not learn about the problems until things go wrong.
    I do not want to be tedious, but I will illustrate further what I mean. One might expect that, in the two areas in which we have restorative justice pilot schemes, society as a whole would see the knock-on effects, whatever good the system might do for the victim or however it may benefit the offender. That is not happening in, for example, the Short Strand, which is an area of the Mountpottinger district. It is certainly not happening in Ballymena, which is becoming Northern Ireland's drugs capital. I say that at the risk of offending my friends from Ballymena, particularly those who play rugby. However, there is nothing to indicate the success of restorative justice during this transitional period in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I would say, in answer to that last observation, that restorative justice has not yet had its opportunity. I take what the noble Lord says with great seriousness. He said earlier, with typical generosity, that there might be some who have served lengthy prison sentences but who might have become truly remorseful—the adverb is important, I agree—and have demonstrated their ability to contribute, perhaps even realising the dreadful wrongs they have done to their fellow citizens.
    That is of course true of all organisations. It is true in some circumstances in the probation service or in social work and one has to be extremely careful and cautious, perhaps overly cautious, before employing anyone who has been in trouble with the law in the past. But I repeat that what is suggested here is that the

    CWH 135
    Secretary of State should have the opportunity of designating bodies which may be called on by the court before it makes such a reparation order.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank all those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment and I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the patient way in which he has dealt with a number of the issues. However, I am in no doubt that we shall wish to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 190:
    Page 31, leave out line 38.
    The noble Lord said: The amendment would strike out the restriction on making a reparation order in respect of an offender if it proposes to pass a custodial sentence on him or her. I am interested to know why this article has been introduced. I do not understand the thinking behind it. Essentially this is a probing amendment to find out, given that I am not very literate in judicial matters.
    However, one can see that there is a degree of overlap between community service orders and reparation orders. Why are reparation orders to be restricted to those who are not to be given any other sentence or order, even though a court might believe that a reparation order would be beneficial in a particular case? I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall explain the thinking behind the article in response to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Reparation orders are intended essentially for those children whose offending is at the lower end of the scale; that is, relatively minor. It is intended therefore to be a low-level disposal, one particularly suited to those who have not progressed to more serious offending. Custody, in particular for children, is well known to be—and ought to be—the last resort reserved for serious offenders. If a child is a sufficiently serious offender to warrant custody, then plainly it would not be appropriate to pass a reparation order. That is the thinking behind this provision and I believe that it is correct.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 191:
    Page 32, line 24, leave out "24" and insert "160"
    The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is aimed at increasing the duration of reparation orders in relation to sentencing and providing an opportunity to separate the provisions for reparation order-making and sentencing for 16 and 17 year-olds and for those aged under 16.
    CWH 136
    We are concerned that the Bill will not provide the courts with sufficient flexibility. The number of hours that I have proposed in the amendment are not intended to be specific; they are purely for the purposes of debating the lack of flexibility offered to the courts. I am concerned that the courts will not have made available to them sufficient discretion to deal effectively with all age groups and with offences of varying degrees of seriousness. Thus I admit that the figures in the amendment are arbitrary.
    I seek to draw attention to the fact that the courts will be prohibited from imposing a longer reparation order even if they thought that this might give an offender a better chance of understanding the distress and inconvenience that his actions had caused, thus enabling the victim more easily to come to terms with the offence. We do not see why that should not be the case. I am aware that Section 74(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states:
    "A reparation order shall not require the offender to work for more than 24 hours in aggregate".
    That is a provision for England and Wales. I do not feel that it necessarily defeats my argument. We are bringing in a new system. It is a new criminal justice system and a new system for youth justice, and I see no reason why we should be tied rigidly in such matters to what has been passed for England and Wales. The Northern Ireland judiciary and the Northern Ireland judicial system are, after devolution, essentially different, and there is every reason to debate whether the Bill has the matter right or wrong.
    Amendment No. 230 makes separate provision for those aged 16 and 17. The inclusion of that age group will bring into the youth justice system more offences such as violent crime and motoring offences, albeit that there are plenty of motoring offences being committed in Belfast involving pilots of about 12 or 13. That is a separate problem now, but it will not remain a separate problem once the Bill is passed. We must take that into account.
    I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the courts will be permitted to use their discretion and will have appropriate penalties at their disposal to deal with serious offences committed by 17 and 18 year-olds, as opposed to 12, 13 or 14 year-olds. I beg to move.
    Lord Laird: We support the amendment keenly.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 would, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, increase the maximum duration from 24 hours to 160 and 240 hours respectively. He is right in saying that 24 hours is the maximum in England and Wales. He is also right to say that what happens in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland does not always go hand-in-hand with what happens in England and Wales. It is important, however, that the success in England and Wales has been significant.
    I repeat my point about Amendment No. 190. That is intended to be low-level intervention for low-level crime. In the life of someone in that category, 24 hours

    CWH 137
    is a significant period and should not be underestimated. For the older person to whom the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, there are, of course, appropriate penalties, as he described them. I shall give him the reassurance that he wanted. There are other disposals, including, for instance, a probation order or, for the 16-plus age group—to which the noble Lord particularly referred—a community service order of up to 240 hours. So, there is a more serious penalty available in the case of a more serious offender, aged over 16.
    The provision in Schedule 10 is taken directly from the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It relates to the imposition of a community service order for the breach of an order as defined in the 1996 order. It is not relevant to children under 16, who cannot be made subject to a community service order. For those who are aged 16 and over, the court already has the power under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to impose an additional penalty of up to 60 hours' community service for the breach of an order. It is limited for that reason.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise for asking this question, which arises out of the review on criminal justice. I do not know where else I would ask it. I would quite understand if the Minister felt more inclined to give me a written answer, rather than answering today. Paragraph 10.89 of the review says:
    "In respect of juveniles, we recommend that the Government should commission independent research into the effects of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 on juvenile defendants as a matter of urgency, and that the findings of that research should he published".
    Have there been any developments in that regard since the review was published?
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the noble Lord's question, I have to exercise my right of silence, because I do not know the answer—oh, I do now. I understand that that research has been commissioned, but not published.
    Clause 53 agreed to.
    Clause 54 [Community responsibility orders]:
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 195:
    Page 34, line 18, leave out "instruction" and insert "teaching"
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 196. We have been too economical with these amendments. The word "instruction" appears four times between lines 15 and 20, two of which are covered by these amendments. Our view is that the word should be changed on all four occasions,
    CWH 138
    but this is a technical matter that could be tidied up on another occasion. It would be more appropriate to speak to the principle of whether the word is appropriate and to hear the Government's response. The words "teaching" and "learning" have two sides. I am not convinced that the recipient of "instruction" would be as enthusiastic about the matter.
    If we think of Santa Claus coming and bringing us a little box at Christmas, when we open the box and find all sorts of little bits we look for the instructions. We are willing participants, trying to puzzle it together. It could be said that someone will have to undertake the giving of instruction. It could be said that all one needs to do is to give the sheet and ask the person to read it and then, when they have read it, ask them to read it again—and again, and again.
    This should be about teaching and learning. The word "instruction" would be best banished from this provision and replaced with something friendlier and more likely to achieve a response from the person whom it is suggested should receive that instruction. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The reason for choosing the word "instruction" and sticking adamantly to it is that "instruction" has those further overtones that are needed for children in this category—of guidance and direction as well as literal teaching. The instructions on the toys one receives at Christmas normally say, "Battery not provided".
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: We will think again when we have recharged our batteries, when we next consider the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]
    Clause 54 agreed to.
    Clause 55 [Custody care orders]:
    Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 200:
    Page 38, line 2, leave out "one half or
    The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment referring to custody care orders. New Article 44A(6) provides that,
    "the period for which a child is to be kept in secure accommodation under a custody care order shall be one half of the period of the order".
    Referring to paragraph (2) of the same article, I would like clarification that that is a fixed proportion of the sentence, the remaining period being a period of suspension. My friends in the judiciary are concerned that any discretion would not be welcome. They are wary of legislation imposing sentencing directions. I beg to move.
    Lord Hylton: I welcome the new invention of custody care orders. However, it is unclear how they will work in practice. The numbers of children arid young people affected by them may be very small indeed. Therefore, one wonders where these people will be kept. Will they be mixed with ordinary children in care, or will they be separate? if they are to be

    CWH 139
    separate, is there some danger that they will be in ones and possibly two, and therefore isolated? There are risks either way, whether they are mixed or separate. Close co-operation will be needed between the NIO and the Department of Health. I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord would comment on those aspects.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should like clarification on the effect of the provision. I think that it stems from a policy decision that when a custody order is made, the period in custody shall be no more than half the total, and that the remaining half shall be under supervision. In other words, they are to be divided 50:50. If that is the case, what is the reasoning for that policy decision? I assume also that it extends to custody orders that are made by the court for a longer period than six months. I recognise that the court will have to give reasons for the award of a longer sentence. Does the same 50:50 division apply there?
    I hope that no element of parity with remission rules comes in here. We know that there is a statutory period of remission of 50 per cent for sentences of imprisonment. It is inappropriate to apply that sort of reasoning to a custody care order, because the court will make a careful judgement as to whether a custody order is appropriate. It would seem quite wrong to have a statutory period dividing by half that period on the same basis as remission of sentences. I do not think it arises, but I thought it might. I would be grateful if that could be cleared up.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As a layman, I have to confess that I find this somewhat baffling. I am sure that clarification and guidance would be welcome not only from my limited intake but to—I hesitate to bracket other Members of the Grand Committee with me—the general public and others who would be engaged in the enforcement of this provision.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to respond. The provision is for children between 10 and 13 who need the most careful attention. It is intended to be a fixed term of half spent in secure accommodation—I confirm the understanding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—and half thereafter to be spent under supervision, probably by a probation officer, in the community. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is a policy decision following the recommendation of the criminal justice review that children who require custody at quite tender years should be accommodated within the care section rather than in a juvenile justice centre.
    In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we anticipate relatively small numbers, but this is a gap in our present system. We are not currently able to provide this, which is intended to give children—I stress quite few in number and of young years—the opportunity to remake a life if he is on the downward track. They will be kept by the appropriate authority in secure accommodation. I cannot give the noble Lord the final details, but when I have further details
    CWH 140
    I shall write to him. I echo and endorse his comments that there must be the closest possible co-operation between the relevant authorities.
    If the amendment were passed, the half-half split would not obtain and children of 10 to 13 would be treated much more harshly than older children. I entirely accept that this was intended to be a probing amendment and I hope that I have satisfied the Committee.
    Lord Hylton: Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that continuity of education will be maintained during the time spent in secure accommodation? That would go some way towards overcoming the possible problems of isolation.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Continuity of education will be maintained. In the nature of things, it will not be maintained at the educational establishment that the child formerly attended, but one of the benefits in my experience of secure accommodation managed properly is that quite intense educational opportunities are provided with a much lower pupil-teacher ratio than one finds in a mainstream state school.
    Lord Glentoran: I wonder whether this is an appropriate time to ask this question. This system, particularly the youth criminal justice system, is a Rolls-Royce system. The more I know about it, the more I like it, provided we can keep the parameters right. However, I sense that it will be extremely costly. What are the Government's intentions on how the system will be funded?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is expensive. From my fairly recent memory, secure accommodation in England and Wales costs of the order of £125,000 a year. On the other hand, as a number of noble Lords have observed, the alternatives are extremely expensive in social disharmony and real distress caused by quite young children, wholly disproportionate to their chronological age. The funding will have to be made available.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clarification of the points raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 201:
    Page 38, line 3, at end insert"; but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept"
    The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 212 in this group. Within Clause 55, new Article 44G defines the legal regime under which a child subject to a CCO will be detained. Because accommodation is provided within the care system, it draws on the provisions in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It has been brought to our attention that we have produced unintended results. We have disapplied provisions

    CWH 141
    within the 1995 order which have wider application. For instance, Article 3 of the 1995 order, which requires a court in civil proceedings, in determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child or the administration of a child's property, to have the child's welfare as its paramount consideration, is disapplied. That was an unintended effect. New Article 44B has been recast with exactly the same policy aim in mind, removing the unintended anomaly.
    We had various representations, which I ought to touch upon. The amended article now makes specific provision within the prescribed legal regime for reviews and representatives as provided by Article 45 of the 1995 order. This will undoubtedly strengthen the process of managing a child's period in secure accommodation. The recast, new Article 45B does not contain any further provision relating to the discharge at any time of a child in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority with the consent of the Secretary of State. The provision has been retained and now appears more logically in new Article 44A(6) and new Article 44F(3)(b), where it is associated more appropriately with the definition of periods to be spent in secure accommodation. The meaning and purpose has not changed. Those are in a sense technical amendments. They were rather convoluted and I hope I have explained them. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 202:
    Page 38, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 39 and insert—

    "(1) This Article makes provision about the application of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (N.I. 2) in relation to a child during any period for which he is kept in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority under a custody care order (or under any other order under this Order or as a place of safety).

    (2) Of the provisions about a child looked after by an authority (within the meaning of Article 25) those specified in paragraph (3) (and no others) apply.

    (3) Those provisions are—

    (a) Article 26 (duty to safeguard and promote welfare);

    (b) Article 27(1), (2)(b), (e) and (f), (8) and (9) and Article 28(2) (accommodation and maintenance);

    (c) Article 29(1), (2) and (4) to (6) (promotion and maintenance of contact with family);

    (d) Articles 30 and 31 (visits);

    (e) Article 34 (death);

    (f) Article 35(1) and Article 36(1) and (4) (advice, assistance and befriending);

    (g) Article 45 (reviews and representations); and

    (h) Articles 72 and 73 (provision of homes).

    (4) In their application by virtue of paragraph (2)—

    (a) Article 29(4) has effect with the omission of subparagraph (a); and

    (b) Article 34(1)(a) has effect as if the reference to the Department were to the Department and the Secretary of State.

    CWH 142

    (5) The following provisions—

    (a) Article 5(7) (person having parental responsibility not to act inconsistently with order);

    (b) Article 52(3) to (6), (7)(a) and (9) (effect of care order); and

    (c) Article 53(1) to (9) (parental contact),

    apply as if the custody care order (or the other order or the placing of the child in a place of safety) were a care order and the appropriate authority were the authority designated by it and in whose care the child is.

    (6) Articles 8 to 14 (residence, contact etc. orders) and Articles 17 to 24 (children in need) do not apply.

    (7) No care order or supervision order under Part 5 may be made or, if such an order has already made, it does not have effect."

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 203:
    Page 39, line 33, at end insert "and.
    (ii) will be offered an independent advocacy service within 24 hours of his return to secure accommodation to ensure that the reason for his escape is fully understood and reported to the Secretary of State in writing."
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 210. The amendments refer to the provision relating to escape from secure accommodation. Amendment No. 203 would insert a provision for the person who escaped to be offered an independent advocacy service within 24 hours of return—excepting all the business about being rounded up and returned—to ensure that the reason for the escape was fully understood and reported to the Secretary of State in writing.
    It has not been totally unknown—though only on rare occasions—for some institutions to be places from which it might be no bad thing if somebody escaped. If somebody tries to escape because something is going wrong in the institution and they cannot cope with it, it is proper that the Secretary of State ought to know about the problem. There should be provision for that independent advocacy service. I appreciate that we would hope that such a provision would be rarely, if ever, used, but it is important there should be some understanding if there is something going wrong and a child escapes. They should have a way of being able to report what has gone wrong and hopefully then it will be put right. I beg to move.
    Lord Hylton: I support the general thrust of the amendment. However, I wonder whether an independent advocacy service should not be provided before somebody escapes. That may prevent the escape taking place.
    I can cite the experience of the existing training schools which are secure or semi-secure. In those NIACRO, of which I have the honour to be president, has been instrumental in providing an advocacy service for all inmates, regardless of their intention to escape or not. Perhaps that precedent could he taken into account in the new system.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure what an independent advocacy service is intended to be,

    CWH 143
    although I take the point made by the noble Lord; namely, that any escape of a child from custody ought, of itself, to cause alarm bells to ring. Escaping is an arrestable offence, but a child can be taken before a court only with the agreement of the Secretary of State. If that happens, then of course the child would be legally represented at the court.
    I think that the noble Lord who has proposed the amendment is not so much interested in legal representation as, if I understand the case correctly, in introducing a mechanism for bringing to the attention of an appropriate outside authority—that is, not the secure accommodation itself—the fact that something has gone wrong. I do not think that the amendment offers a mechanism for bringing that about. It is more likely to be brought about by the system recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
    We should not forget that there will be appropriate inspection of these authorities. I accept that, in the past—and I hope it is in the past—independent inspections did not always work. I shall certainly give some thought to what the noble Lord seeks with his amendment, but I am absolutely certain that the amendment as drafted is not the way to bring it about.
    I have been helpfully reminded—I seek to assist the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, in particular and the Committee in general—that the amendment we have just made to Article 45 in the 1995 order means that the authority holding the child will have to make arrangements for reviewing the detention of that child. That may provide some reassurance, but I would like to consider the matter with officials and, if it proves to be necessary, with the noble Lord and any other noble Lord who wishes to join us. We should examine whether we can satisfy the Committee further on this issue. I will undertake to give some distinct thought to this before we return to it on Report.
    Finally, I am reminded to confirm the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that independent representation by NIACRO is provided in secure care accommodation as well.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord. In the light of his remarks and with the possibility of discussions taking place, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 204:
    Page 39, line 42, leave out "30 days" and insert "six months"
    The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 204, and speak at the same time to the amendments included in this grouping; that is, Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213 and 214. Amendment No. 204 would increase the duration of an extension to a child's custody order. I note that under paragraph (3)(b) of new Article 44C, the court may revoke the custody order altogether and deal with the child in any other manner which it thinks fit. We are concerned that an extension of 30 days or less might invite more frequent attempts at escape.
    CWH 144
    Amendment Nos. 205 to 209 would increase the penalties for those who knowingly assist a child's escape, who remove a child without lawful authority, who harbour a child who escapes or who otherwise obstruct the implementation of a custody care order. In view of the fact that outside interference could have very serious consequences for the child concerned, I should appreciate some assurance from the Minister that the Government expect to see these offences treated with due seriousness.
    The remaining amendments relate to the breach of supervision requirements. I should be grateful for an assurance that, as far as possible, no child will undergo a cycle of detention followed by escape, which would jeopardise the child's chances of rehabilitation and acceptance back into the community. That does not currently appear in the Bill.
    Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 214, which would substitute the word "may" for "shall". That is in line with our concern that the courts should have the maximum discretion. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: A proposal to increase the maximum penalty from 30 days to six months is quite excessive and wholly disproportionate. That relates to the escape of a child from secure accommodation. I could not agree to the suggestion that six months' further incarceration should be appropriate in those circumstances. There is also a question about increasing very substantially the maximum fines but one needs to bear in mind the sort of child with whom one is dealing and what the purpose of very large maxima punitive fines should be.
    The provisions simply replicate the existing penalties in the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and they represent the general norm for this type of offence. The penalties in the Bill for children who escape are proportionate. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
    In Amendments Nos. 211 and 213, the same approach is adopted. The maximum penalty for noncompliance would go up from 30 days to six months' further detention, which I remind Members of the Committee is the equivalent of a 12-month sentence. That is excessive and quite disproportionate.
    On Amendment No. 214, we believe that the direction should use the word "shall". I simply part company with the noble Viscount because we have a different approach of principle. I do not think I will persuade him or that he will persuade me.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. We would like to revisit on Report the subject of treatment prejudicing a child that jeopardises his or her chances of rehabilitation and reacceptance into the community thereafter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 205 to 211 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 212:
    Page 42, line 4, at end insert"; but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have one small technical question. A purist might say that I should have raised it in relation to Amendment No. 209B but it is much easier to raise my question once that amendment has been withdrawn and we are still with the existing terms of the Bill. Article 44E(1) on page 41 states:
    "During the period of supervision under a custody care order, the child shall he under the supervision of a probation officer or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    That establishes who is going to be the person supervising the child. Paragraph (3) contains the phrase:
    "During the period of supervision the person under whose supervision the offender is".
    In view of that language, one would logically go back to the two alternatives in Article 44E(1). The paragraph goes on to use the phrase that my noble friend Lady Park sought to remove from the Bill; that is,
    "or another person designated by the Secretary of State."
    My question is whether this other person designated by the Secretary of State is a new person in addition to the person referred to in paragraph (1). I have to infer from the language that that is the case but it would be helpful to know why.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is. The reason is to allow flexibility: if it was more appropriate that the notice be served—this concerns only the question of serving a notice—by another person, that flexibility should be available. It is only a notice-serving power.
    Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
    5.45 p.m.
    Clause 56 [Youth conferences and youth conference plans]:
    [Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 215A:
    Page 43, line 14, at end insert—
    "( ) a representative of the prosecution"
    The noble Lord said: The amendment is straightforward. It would add a representative of the prosecution to the list. It seems to me that the circle should be complete, or thereabouts. We are talking about a serious matter. Even if the representative of the prosecution did not take any part, at least so far as
    CWH 146
    the young person is concerned, he has not been let off—a prosecution would still be going on. That seems appropriate to us in relation to the youth conference meeting. The article states:
    "A meeting does not constitute, or form part of, a youth conference unless the following persons participate in it".
    It is important, as I said, that the circle should be complete and that the prosecution should be there, albeit, if necessary, in some observational role. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I advise Members of the Committee not to agree to the amendment. The amendment would add to Article 3A(2) on page 43 new paragraph (e), which would refer to a prosecutor. It would mean that if a heavily stretched prosecution service did not provide a prosecutor, the meeting could not constitute itself or be lawfully continued. There is no part for the prosecutor to play at this stage because a referral to a diversionary conference can he made only after an admission of guilt, and to a court-ordered conference after a finding of guilt. That is not a forum for questioning again the facts of the offence and it is not intended to be adversarial. The legal representative of the child is not there to re-defend him, and no one at the conference is there to re-prosecute.
    The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the prosecutor might just be there. The interests of the public at large—in which, of course, I include all those who have been hurt and harmed by the crime—are reasonably served by the presence of the police officer. It seems, first, that the prosecutor would have no role to play. Secondly, it would waste resources and, thirdly, it is capable of confusing those conference occasions with either the admission of guilt stage or the finding of guilt stage. That would not be desirable.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 216:
    Page 43, line 17, at end insert"; or
    ( ) the probation Board of Northern Ireland"
    The noble Lord said: Arnendment No. 216 seeks to include the Probation Board of Northern Ireland as youth conference co-ordinators. The Probation Board of Northern Ireland has extensive and direct experience in dealing with matters of youth justice in Northern Ireland. As such, it seems sensible that the probation board appears alongside the Civil Service as an organisation that supplies youth conference coordinators. It is an expert group, as I have said, and it is at the front line of the justice system. It seems to me and, perhaps more importantly, to it that it would be appropriate for it to be included in this regard. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lord that those who work in the probation service for Northern Ireland are, first, experienced and, secondly, of very high quality. I want to stress that existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for

    CWH 147
    youth conference co-ordinators will be most welcome to apply for the posts. If they are successful, they would then resign from their existing employment and become civil servants within the youth conferencing agency.
    This was the recommendation of the review; namely, that the youth conferencing service should be housed within a separate agency. The problem with regard to including the probation board is that it would be foolish for conference co-ordinators to be managed by two completely different employing bodies. It would be wiser to work from a single agency, but I stress that anyone from the probation service of Northern Ireland is more than welcome. We would warmly welcome their applications if they have the appropriate qualifications and experience. Such applicants would be well regarded as employees of the single agency.
    Lord Glentoran: How would they know about it?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Appropriate advertisements will be placed in the usual way. I know that our proceedings here—I do not think that I am being presumptuous in saying this—are quite carefully scrutinised in Northern Ireland. They will be more than welcome to apply.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal to clarify one point. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has made it clear that civil servants from other parts of the United Kingdom as well as from Northern Ireland would form the agency; namely representatives of the Civil Service of the United Kingdom and the Civil Service of Northern Ireland In effect, those are two different organisations. I cannot see why it should be a problem to involve the probation service of Northern Ireland as well.
    The noble and learned Lord stated very generously that if probation officers wished to apply, they could do so. However, we should put ourselves in the mind of a person working in the probation service in Northern Ireland. He or she might make it known that they want to get involved in the new service. They apply, but they do not get the job. They might have great difficulty moving back into the probation service in Northern Ireland.
    Will their pension rights and so forth be transferred? It seems easy, given the skills and expertise of the probation officers, just to put on to the face of the Bill a provision that would allow them take part in this, but to remain members of the probation service of Northern Ireland.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point made by the noble Baroness. However, if we are setting up a youth justice agency then it is wiser that all of those who are subject to its directions should be employed by it. The staffing arrangements for the youth co-ordinators replicates the existing order settling arrangements for the staffing of the Northern Ireland
    CWH 148
    Office. I am not sure that is a perfectly convincing answer, or perhaps it is my reading rather than the writing.
    I can only repeat what I have said: they will be welcome to apply. If they do not apply, of course, that is the same with all organisations. A police officer may want to become a probation officer; if he or she does not succeed, then he or she can carry on as a police officer and vice versa. That is quite commonplace.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 217 and 217A not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 218:
    Page 44, line 13, after "may" insert ", subject to the agreement of the police officer participating in the youth conference,"
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 218 returns to my theme—perhaps it is now a little worn—of keeping the mechanisms of youth conferences and so forth cleaner than clean.
    Amendment 218 would change the Bill to read:
    "A youth conference co-ordinator may, subject to the agreement of the police officer participating in the youth conference, allow other persons to participate".
    That keeps the police officer on board for the purposes of Amendment No. 220, which would ensure that we do not have people involved in youth conferences whom all of us in Grand Committee would prefer not to be. Again, I am trying to protect the concept of youth conferencing and this part of the Bill in general, which—in Northern Ireland more than anywhere— will be put seriously at risk otherwise.
    I have spoken to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and to the superintendent concerned with the trials of the system going on in Belfast. They support the system, as do we. However, they are also fearful, as we are, of the situation in west Belfast and in parts of north Belfast, where a similar or parallel scheme is being carried out by the paramilitaries. If youth conferencing is to work, it must take place within the criminal justice system, which means that the participants must sign up to the criminal justice system.
    We know that communities in certain parts of the Province—fortunately, not many—will not sign up to supporting either the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the British judicial system. On that front, we must be extremely careful that we clearly define the line between legal youth conferences and those taking place on the black market. The situation in parts of the Protestant community is not dissimilar, but I am told that they are more inclined to accept the judicial system; they are certainly more inclined to accept the authority of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    I stress that Amendments Nos. 218, 219 and 220 are necessary to ensure that youth conferencing, as described in the Bill, is not in any way contaminated or—worse—hijacked by those whom we would prefer not to be involved in it. I beg to move.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support the amendment strongly and think that police officers

    CWH 149
    must be consulted. It is relatively easy to say that people who have been convicted and been put in prison are not eligible; it would be surprising if anyone thought that they were. There will be a certain number of paramilitaries known in the community to be men of violence who beat people, exile people and even arrange to shoot people, but they may not have been arrested or convicted because no one has dared to testify, leaving the police powerless. Therefore, it is extremely important that there should be a long stop, a way of dealing with a situation in which a youth conference organiser might, in perfectly good faith, wish to appoint or include in the operation somebody who falls into that category.
    Lord Glentoran: I shall add one more thing to save time. The noble and learned Lord will not have missed the point of the wording in Amendment No. 219:
    "who have not been convicted of an offence under Schedule 1 … or are, in the opinion of a police superintendent or higher ranking officer, a member of a proscribed organisation."
    I am sure that he will remember that those are almost the exact words used in the Terrorism Act 2000, the legislation enacted after Omagh, to allow superintendents to give evidence. It is true that a person cannot be convicted on that evidence solely, but it states quite clearly in the Act that such evidence is admissible.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right on that last point. He has reminded us that the 1996 Act has been repealed, but that the provision is the same in the Terrorism Act 2000.
    Perhaps I may turn to the Bill itself. Earlier we held discussions on this topic and clearly it is a matter of great concern. On page 44 of the Bill, subsection (8) states that:
    "A youth conference co-ordinator may allow other persons—

    (a) to participate in any meeting constituting, or forming part of, a youth conference; or

    (b) to attend any such meeting for any purpose specified by him"—

    and then these important words—
    "if he considers that their participation, or attendance for that purpose, would be of value".
    When the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, intervened a little earlier, we discussed the question of who may become a youth conference co-ordinator. It will be an independent professional of high quality. Co-ordinators will not be given authority in that position without being possessed of those qualities.
    I know the limitations of rhetorical questions, but if such a person, a youth conference co-ordinator, came to the conclusion that the participation of an individual for the whole of the meeting or part of the meeting, or attendance for a particular purpose for part of the meeting, would be of value, would it not be inappropriate, first, to give the police an absolute veto? Secondly, would it not be inappropriate absolutely to disqualify anyone from attendance and participation for part of the meeting, for any purpose specified by the youth co-ordinator, if that independent professional—plainly someone of quality
    CWH 150
    and judgment—has come to the conclusion that such attendance might be of value? I suggest that that would be an unwise step.
    I should like to develop my theme. A unifying factor throughout our discussion of Part 4 of this Bill has been that everyone wants to make it work. Warm tributes have been made to the success, for example, of the North London schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Laird, has visited, as have other Members of the Committee, as well as the Thames Valley scheme which has also been so successful.
    What would be brought about by Amendment No. 218 is that the police officer, who has a part to play, is to be given an absolute veto over the coordinator. That cannot be right. The police officer is extremely important, but he will not necessarily have the qualifications and the apparent independence of judgment in all circumstances to be able to override the attendance of a particular individual.
    I am not sure whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wishes to bring about, but it would be very remarkable and rather alarming to give the police officer the veto. I know what the noble Lord is aiming for, but to give a police officer a veto in these delicate circumstances would be wrong.
    Perhaps the important meat of this resides in the linked amendments to which I also now refer. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he wanted to avoid the tainting of the procedures by those who were themselves polluted or tainted—I think I have paraphrased his remarks fairly. I take that point, but my counterpoint goes back to what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
    In his experience—which I humbly accept is greater than mine—there are some who have committed gross crimes, but who have redeemed themselves in so far as any human being can, and have been able to offer some kind of restoration—not to their immediate victims and not to their connected victims, but to the community that they have wounded and disgraced. Is it wise to obliterate their possible contribution in every conceivable circumstance although the co-ordinator— I know that I am repeating myself—who must be a person of quality, experience, expertise and judgment thought that there might perhaps be value for a young offender?
    If young offenders are not stopped, none of us needs the gift of prophecy to know that they will continue to repeat their offences until they start to stop in their late forties for various reasons, which may perhaps concern the passage of time and not the fact that they have truly repented. Early intervention is critical. This is a sensitive device and I understand the situation absolutely. However (in some ways I am reluctant to say these words because I do not have the bitter experience of many in this Room) is it wise to put an absolute bar or veto in the hands of a police officer, whatever the rank—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the rank may be of senior status—and whatever the benefit that that might bring to the child in question?

    CWH 151
    I go back to the question: where are the child's interests to be? That was raised in the discussion involving the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Shutt. We disagreed about the paramount interests of the child in a criminal context, although that may be appropriate in the civil context. However, if real value is possible or seriously likely in the judgment of the co-ordinator, should the veto be given? I suggest, although I know that Members of the Committee will not necessarily find this argument persuasive, that that is not the right thing to do.
    6 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: We are told that the youth co-ordinators will be drawn from the Civil Service of the mainland or the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, and I entirely accept his point that any member of those services should be, and would be, someone of quality and probity. However, those from the mainland will know nothing about the personalities in Northern Ireland. All that we are saying is that they need that information. The police are in a position to give it and they are probably the only people who would dare to give it. They also know that none of the people who have suffered at the hands of Mr X—who has been arranging for boys to have their arms and legs broken and who has been doing 100 things that hurt the community—dares go to the police. Therefore, the co-ordinator might appoint somebody in good faith who appears to be, in every other respect, a worthy representative of the community and someone who could usefully and in any other place and in any other circumstances, be well associated.
    However, the young boy—the offender—knows as well as anybody the people who are the villains in his community. He might be considerably taken aback to find himself confronted by someone who has almost certainly never been to prison but is well known as a villain. Therefore, it is a waste to have a police officer associated with this arrangement, as he should be, and not to use the knowledge that the excellent but ignorant civil servant will not have.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness has been guilty, for the first time in my experience, of imprecision. She said—I wrote this down, so it must be true—"the civil servants, admirable though ignorant, need to know; that is all we are saying". She used those words. That is not what the amendment says, however. It would give an absolute veto to a police officer.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I was assuming, naturally, that any normal person faced with the evidence that a police officer would give, would withdraw the idea. It comes to the same thing.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, it does not. The amendment would insert after "may",
    "subject to the agreement of the police officer participating".
    CWH 152
    There is no inhibition on any youth co-ordinator, if he or she feels that their experience is entirely based on England and Wales, making an inquiry. All that we are saying is that they ought to know. There is no difficulty at all about making an inquiry; they can do that if they wish to. I suggest, however, that it is objectionable that the police officer should have an absolute veto or that past history should have an absolute veto.
    I shall stress it again: the youth conference co-ordinator may allow the participation or attendance for any purpose specified of any person,
    "if he considers that their participation, or attendance for that purpose, would be of value".
    That is the only point that I seek to make. It is unwise to allow either a police officer or, as I said, the constraints of history—from which, we know, Northern Ireland has suffered rather too much—to have a veto.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Can I see whether there is a way out of this? With due deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, I must say that there is a great concern here. The situation in Northern Ireland is unlike anything that most of us have experienced. We could consider using a phrase such as "in consultation with a police officer"? If youth conference co-ordinators could consult police officers who knew the history of particular individuals, it would be of great help to them.
    Lord Hylton: I agree with the Government that the amendments, although they bear on different aspects of the process, are all too sweeping. I wonder whether there may not be a way out, as has been suggested, by making sure—not in the Bill, but administratively— that youth conference co-ordinators are fully briefed on the kind of local characters that they may come up against in particular cases.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not want to be discourteous, but I want to do full justice to such deeply held views. A youth conference co-ordinator is likely to take those steps in any event. He will want to satisfy himself that someone's participation, in whole or in part, or attendance, in whole or in part, will be of value. The prudent co-ordinator will make appropriate inquiries.
    Lord Glentoran: I would like to look for a compromise solution. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has suggested one. There are several issues. Perhaps, there could be a code of practice for organisers of youth conferences in which the matters that we are concerned about would be covered. I also wonder whether anybody is in a position to object to participation by a particular person in a youth conference. If the youth conference co-ordinator brings X, Y, Z and two or three others to the conference and says, "This is my conference team", is anybody in the whole process in a position to object to any of those people? I am not sure. It certainly does not come through to me in the Bill.

    CWH 153
    There are two areas on which I would like clarification. First, the compromise suggestion, and secondly, what I have just said.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My name appears as one of the proposers of the amendment. I am not attempting to move another amendment in response to what my noble friend Lord Glentoran said. He has made a good job of guiding us through this along with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It would be a rather more negative approach, perhaps, than our amendment, but we could consider adding the following condition:
    "if the officer considers that the presence of a particular person could be damaging".
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether someone can object. Anyone can make their views known, but, to revert to the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, no one in those circumstances would have a veto.
    On the guidelines, I am trying to be as helpful as possible. The co-ordinators will have guidelines and rules of procedure to deal with the sort of issue that has been raised by a number of your Lordships. They have not been produced yet, but we do not see any reason why they should not be published in due course.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate and I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 219 to 221 not moved.]
    Clause 56 agreed to.
    Clause 57 [Diversionary youth conferences]:
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 222:
    Page 48, line 12, leave out "not" and insert "only"
    The noble Lord said: The aim of Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 is, rather cheekily, to clarify the drafting. I do not think that they would change anything. In my opinion they would make the Bill much clearer—and, probably, stronger—on the consequences. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord Lord Glentoran. I do not think that the amendments make any difference. Being of extremely modest intellect, I could not understand the point of the amendment. I think that it comes to the same thing.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 224:
    Page 48, line 28, at end insert "which must be delivered within ten working days of the end of the diversionary youth conference"
    CWH 154
    The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is straightforward. Not for the first time in the Bill, I want to make sure that, after certain decisions have been taken or reports written, the process continues. The Bill talks about youth conference co-ordinators' reports, but it does not say within what timescale they should be delivered. That seems seriously inappropriate, particularly in a situation dealing with young people. If a report has been written and made, they will be anxious to know what it is all about. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, because I entirely agree with the purpose behind his amendment. By virtue of new Article 3B, the Secretary of State can make rules, about the procedure of youth conferences, including,
    "the period within which youth conferences must be completed and the functions of youth conference co-ordinators must be performed".
    We expect that the rules will be such as to set limits for each of the stages of the conference, including the period between the conclusion of the conference and the report to the director, to which the noble Lord referred. There is the ability to make the rules and the intention to make them to deal with the noble Lord's point.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for the comfort in that statement, which I find quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
    Clause 57 agreed to.
    Clause 58 [Court-ordered youth conferences]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 226:
    Page 49, line 38, leave out "must" and insert "may"
    The noble Lord said: Once again, I am looking to change the Bill because it seems to me to be rather too prescriptive.
    Articles 33B and 33C provide a court must refer the case of a child who has been found guilty of an offence by or before the court to a youth conference coordinator. This is a new system. I have made the point before in our debates. It is a new system on trial in what is perhaps not the most suitable place for seeking to trial a system of this nature; that is, in a very challenging environment. There are certain points in the Bill where I believe that we should not be too prescriptive and that we should allow the courts more scope.
    Instead of insisting that the courts "must" refer the case of a child who has been found guilty of an offence to a youth conference co-ordinator, they should be given the option of deciding whether they believe it appropriate or inappropriate. The insertion of the word "may" instead of "must" would achieve that. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I hope that I can meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.

    CWH 155
    The review originally recommended that the courts should be required to refer all cases to a youth conference other than those triable only on indictment. We have varied that recommendation so that now there is a good deal more discretion than was envisaged by the review. Offences of murder may not be referred to a conference, obviously. A child who is to be discharged, conditionally or unconditionally, may not be referred to a conference. Scheduled offences may be referred to a conference only at the discretion of the court. Summary offences, charged together with either indictable-only or scheduled offences, will attract discretionary referrals.
    In certain circumstances a court does not have to make a referral to a conference, such as when a diversionary conference has already been held in respect of the same offence and the court does have discretion to consider an application from a youth conference co-ordinator not to refer to a child to a conference. Thus, there is a certain amount of discretion.
    I hope that this meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We shall not roll out the provisions until we are satisfied, by virtue of a pilot study, that the scheme will work. In the light of the evaluation of that pilot, we may use the power of new Article 33A(10) to amend the legislation. I take the point made by the noble Lord: by and large we are moving in uncharted waters. I hope that my remarks will meet his concerns.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I am very encouraged by it. It seems an eminently sensible way to progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 227:
    Page 51, line 41, at end insert—
    "( ) The court may not order a diversionary youth conference in respect of a child who has completed two previous diversionary youth conferences in connection with previous offences."
    The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks quite simply to prevent the situation where a continual truant can ride on the merry-go-round again and again with no apparent structure in the system to prevent it. Once a youngster has twice been around the youth conferencing system, then the youth conferencers—if I may refer to them as such—have had two bites of the cherry. I should have thought that that should be enough. This amendment seeks to prevent the continuous process of youth conference/re-offend/ youth conference/re-offend and so on. I beg to move.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I support this amendment. When some noble Lords visited the North London centre, it was absolutely clear that, although the victim and the perpetrator of a crime are very important, it is vastly expensive to set up a conferencing system as a whole organisation, taking into account the training, the support needs and so forth. Although those two parties are important, in the longer term the most
    CWH 156
    important function is to reduce future crime levels. If an offender is a repeat offender, then clearly in that case we would be spending the money on the wrong person. That would set an incredibly bad example and would defeat our intention to create a good example; namely, that of a young offender being reformed and going back into the community. He should then influence others. If we have repeat offenders, we shall not achieve that aim.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are not too far apart in our approach. That approach would involve a mandatory limitation on the number of conferences. My suggestion to the Committee is that that would probably be a mistake. I understand the points that were made by both noble Lords. If one simply allowed persistent offenders to carry on going to conference after conference, that would be, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, a joke. It would also be a deeply offensive joke, not simply for reasons of expense but also because someone would be manipulating the system—in the same way as people are, in our view, constantly given bail when they should not have it because they make an extremely offensive gesture to the whole concept that the justice system seeks to obtain.
    That is not the only answer. We have to bear in mind the fact that conferences may fail through no fault of the child. Let us assume that a conference fails through no fault of the child. It surely would not be right to penalise the child and to deprive society of the opportunity of rehabilitation through reparation in those circumstances. It may well be that more than two conferences should be allowed.
    Let me take another illustration that arises from the experiences of the noble Viscount. It may be that the victim of a fourth or fifth offence is keen to participate in a conference and wishes to confront the child. Should the opportunity of that victim be taken away because the child has already been to two conferences? I would suggest not. I agree that there must be some mechanism to ensure that there are not multiple redundant conferences—that is what is offensive. If the conference is worth having, it is not offensive but, if it is redundant, it is.
    We have included a provision later in the clause—in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 33D—to allow the court to consider an application from a conference co-ordinator that a conference should not be held. That is the in-built mechanism to protect us all against inappropriate multiple conferences. There will be rules for co-ordinators to ensure that there is clarity about when such a recommendation is made. I hope I have been able to assuage some of the concerns of Members of the Committee.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, which has helped me to feel a little more comfortable about the whole process and that my worries are understood within the process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 58 agreed to.

    CWH 157
    Clause 59 [Youth conference orders]:
    [Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
    Clause 59 agreed to.
    Clause 60 [Legal aid for youth conferences]:
    [Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
    Clause 60 agreed to.
    Clause 61 agreed to.
    Schedule 10 [Youth justice orders: enforcement etc.]:
    [Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
    Schedule 10 agreed to.
    Clause 62 agreed to.
    Schedule 11 agreed to.
    Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: This may be a convenient moment for us to adjourn before we re-congregate tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 19th June at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

  Police Authorities: Objectives
  Police Authorities: Objectives
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Guantanamo Bay
  Guantanamo Bay
  EU Internal Market Council: Procurement Rules
  EU Internal Market Council: Procurement Rules
  Furniture Fire Safety Regulations: Manchester
  Furniture Fire Safety Regulations: Manchester
  Mines Rescue Service
  Mines Rescue Service
  Age of Eligibility for Election to Public Office
  Age of Eligibility for Election to Public Office
  Broadband: eEurope 2005
  Broadband: eEurope 2005
  Imports from the Philippines
  Imports from the Philippines
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  TSE Regulations: Market Value of Animals Slaughtered
  TSE Regulations: Market Value of Animals Slaughtered
  GM Crops
  GM Crops
  Green Waste
  Green Waste
  Pest and Disease Control
  Pest and Disease Control
  Ministerial Cars: GLA Tolls
  Ministerial Cars: GLA Tolls
  London Underground
  London Underground
  London Congestion Charging
  London Congestion Charging
  National Air Traffic Services
  National Air Traffic Services
  Road Improvement
  Road Improvement
  Railtrack
  Railtrack
  National Safety Camera Partnerships
  National Safety Camera Partnerships
  A2 Road
  A2 Road